prisonplanet.com: obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html

[Thiebear]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Friday, June 25, 2010

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.

What are we China?

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Its all fun and games now that the smart President is in: But if ex. President Bush "The Internets" had this? ohh yeah...

Though President Obama did call it the internet program Twitters..

[ACW]

On one hand, this does indeed seem bad.

OTOH, prisonplanet.com is the website of conspiracy theorist Alexhe was the executive producer for Loose Change, which was criticized as containing errors...this from OTHER Truthers.

And then there's THIS :insane:

[jnhay]

In what situation would this be necessary? It sounds like a terrible idea to me, after just reading what you posted. Why would the president need to shut down the Internet when you'd think that private organizations would do that if problems were that severe.

It's funny. I've been assigned to listen to a debate about "Has the Cyberwar Threat Been Exaggerated?" I think this might be an example clearly in support of the statement.

[Skin'Em84]

How would this work?

[Mr. Sinister]

I would stay away from prisonplanet. Alex Jones is Michael Moore on meth. All his BS about the police state/impending "marshall law takeover" Illuminatti globalist agenda etc. is just complete and utter lunacy. I've watched a few of his documentaries, and it just boggles my mind that people would believe some of that stuff. The NWO killing1/3 of the Earths population? LOL

[Burgold]

and...?

Are you saying if there's an incredible cyberterrorist attack that endangers both defense and finances you don't want the government to have the ability to intercede?

(Edit: Surprised that Presidents didn't already have this power considering the eco damage a few bits and bites can do)

[10fttall]

Please, for the love of all that's holy, don't use Prisonplanet as a source! Wait for it to come out on some less loony website.

This power would be pretty disturbing if it is true, but I don't know that it's out of line with other things that have been done in times of true national crisis. Think rationing.

And while hypothetical reversal strawmen are generally unprovable, I think it is beyond question that Bush and the Republicans would have been chased with pitchforks, called fascist, and declared power hungry; if they did something similar.

[McD5]

Please, for the love of all that's holy, don't use Prisonplanet as a source! Wait for it to come out on some less loony website.

This power would be pretty disturbing if it is true, but I don't know that it's out of line with other things that have been done in times of true national crisis. Think rationing.

And while hypothetical reversal strawmen are generally unprovable, I think it is beyond question that Bush and the Republicans would have been chased with pitchforks, called fascist, and declared power hungry; if they did something similar.

This was out days ago, on many different sources. Bloomberg, CNN--it's real.

[NewCliche21]

1) Prisonplanet? Kind of discrediting all of your arguments in every post if those are the straws that you're grasping for.

2) I, too, am surprised that the office of the president (note that the bill does not say "Obama") doesn't have this power. Believe it or not, people, defense decisions (aside from 2003's cluster****) are made based on evidence that the rest of us don't have access to. I know, shocker. The president should be able to cut the switch if we're being attacked. Did you know that the president can institute suspend habeas corpus? That's a little bit more extreme than stopping your facebooking for a few months.

Or, would you rather attack Obama and have our national grid, health care, sanitation, and pretty much every other system be relentlessly assaulted?

[Springfield]

and...?

Are you saying if there's an incredible cyberterrorist attack that endangers both defense and finances you don't want the government to have the ability to intercede?

Not without botching it somehow. I want the government as far away from the internet as possible.

Say there was some sort of hacker (re: cyberterrorist) on a financial institution. I'd think the internet security branch of said financial institution would be better suited to stop the attack than the government.

And on a side note, why are we so insistent as a society to label everything as "terrorist". Cyberterrorist? Ecoterrorist? These are heavy words we are giving to things that in my opinion don't merit it. It's almost as if we want to make these people out to be more dangerous than they actually are.

[twa]

and...?

Are you saying if there's an incredible cyberterrorist attack that endangers both defense and finances you don't want the government to have the ability to intercede?

Agreed...this is nothing to worry over

we have real issues to worry with

:evilg:

[McD5]

twa. That is hysterical.

[NewCliche21]

Not without botching it somehow. I want the government as far away from the internet as possible.

Say there was some sort of hacker (re: cyberterrorist) on a financial institution. I'd think the internet security branch of said financial institution would be better suited to stop the attack than the government.

And on a side note, why are we so insistent as a society to label everything as "terrorist". Cyberterrorist? Ecoterrorist? These are heavy words we are giving to things that in my opinion don't merit it. It's almost as if we want to make these people out to be more dangerous than they actually are.

Because cyberterrorists and ecoterrorists exist? Because they're actively trying to terrorize us through cyber attacks and attacks on the environment?

And it's not just about hacking your bank account. Do you know how connected every system that we have is? Do you think that any system doesn't have a kill switch?

Man, I can't believe how little people know about the world.

This isn't going to be used except for in emergencies. It's not like Obama's going to find Sasha watching Lady Gaga videos and cut off the entire Internet, people.

[Burgold]

Not without botching it somehow. I want the government as far away from the internet as possible.

Say there was some sort of hacker (re: cyberterrorist) on a financial institution. I'd think the internet security branch of said financial institution would be better suited to stop the attack than the government.

And on a side note, why are we so insistent as a society to label everything as "terrorist". Cyberterrorist? Ecoterrorist? These are heavy words we are giving to things that in my opinion don't merit it. It's almost as if we want to make these people out to be more dangerous than they actually are.

The problem with this is how interconnected everything is... so while your guy might be good if the guy at the seven banks across the street aren't as clever it could still have a devastating domino effect and still sidewise get to you as well. Think of it this way... a virus sent to you that gets into your computer can impact how many computers before you notice it. Think how many emails and communications are sent between how many businesses daily, hourly.

As to the ________terrorist thing, it's an easy shorthand.

[DButz65]

If this ever happens, I am sure verizon will reimburse me for the 4 months of inactivity right?

Horrible idea IMO

[Burgold]

If this happens AND needs to be enacted the last thing you will be worried about is your monthly ISP bill.

[Soup]

I hope you realize Alex Jones is a nut...

[Springfield]

Because cyberterrorists and ecoterrorists exist? Because they're actively trying to terrorize us through cyber attacks and attacks on the environment?

And it's not just about hacking your bank account. Do you know how connected every system that we have is? Do you think that any system doesn't have a kill switch?

Man, I can't believe how little people know about the world.

This isn't going to be used except for in emergencies. It's not like Obama's going to find Sasha watching Lady Gaga videos and cut off the entire Internet, people.

I understand exactly what the ramifications are. I didn't mention Obama anywhere in my statement. I like Obama, I support him. Kinda like the Patriot Act to me, it's the possibilities that it opens up.

Say there was a "cyberterrorist" (what a god awful word, they are just hackers) attack. There are two possible outcomes in my opinion, neither of which ends well. Outcome number 1, they stop the attack and nobody loses any information, the hackers get nothing and everyone is saved. People will undoubtedly ***** because we lost our precious internet. "They shut us down for nothing!" Outcome number 2, they don't stop the attack we lose tons of information, our infrastructure is compromised and serious damage is caused. The internet does get turned off but just a little too late. People will undoubtedly ***** because the government didn't act soon enough. "They couldn't stop the cyberterrorists, we're doomed!" Outcome number 2 seems much more likely to me. When something gets hit by a hacker, there is usually no evidence of it until the hacker is long gone.

I just don't see a way that government intervention against a hacker(s) would end well.

[NewCliche21]

I understand exactly what the ramifications are. I didn't mention Obama anywhere in my statement. I like Obama, I support him. Kinda like the Patriot Act to me, it's the possibilities that it opens up.

Say there was a "cyberterrorist" (what a god awful word, they are just hackers) attack. There are two possible outcomes in my opinion, neither of which ends well. Outcome number 1, they stop the attack and nobody loses any information, the hackers get nothing and everyone is saved. People will undoubtedly ***** because we lost our precious internet. "They shut us down for nothing!" Outcome number 2, they don't stop the attack we lose tons of information, our infrastructure is compromised and serious damage is caused. The internet does get turned off but just a little too late. People will undoubtedly ***** because the government didn't act soon enough. "They couldn't stop the cyberterrorists, we're doomed!" Outcome number 2 seems much more likely to me. When something gets hit by a hacker, there is usually no evidence of it until the hacker is long gone.

I just don't see a way that government intervention against a hacker(s) would end well.

1) Where did I mention Obama in the post that you're quoting? I made sure that the subject line was clear. It's not giving Obama permission; it's giving the president permission.

2) The semantics aren't important. After all, the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists, they were just hijackers, right?

3) Of course there will be collateral damage. It's a tourniquet for the internet. The whole point is to stop the damage. And, with all due respect, I'll take the Pentagon's advice over Norton's. I think that they know a wee bit more about other nations'/terrorists' modes of attack. It's not just going to be used when someone is trying to steal information; it'll be used when someone is turning off power, changing algorithms used to determine safe levels of chemicals in drinking water/air supplies, altering Wall Street, etc.

[Springfield]

The problem with this is how interconnected everything is... so while your guy might be good if the guy at the seven banks across the street aren't as clever it could still have a devastating domino effect and still sidewise get to you as well. Think of it this way... a virus sent to you that gets into your computer can impact how many computers before you notice it. Think how many emails and communications are sent between how many businesses daily, hourly.

As to the ________terrorist thing, it's an easy shorthand.

The problem I see is that a good hacker will have his job long before the government has the chance to hit the kill switch. The damage will already be done for the reasons you just stated.

Put it this way, if a hacker wanted to take out oh, Bank of America. I'm sure BOA is very secure, has many redundancies in their systems so it wouldn't be a job for just one man, he'd have to recruit a few more of his terrorist (re: computer nerd) buddies as well. They could simultaneously strike all of the records, crash their systems, etc. BOA would be trying to figure out what was going on long before the government even knew what was happening. Hours later, when the government gets wind of what is happening, the damage is already done. Anything else would be collateral damage. Sure the government could shut off the internet but it wouldn't have helped BOA (who I'm sure could rectify everything, it would take a long time though).

Just another reason against a paperless society.

[twa]

The problem I see is that a good hacker will have his job long before the government has the chance to hit the kill switch. The damage will already be done for the reasons you just stated.

From my understanding this is a safeguard against a concerted ongoing attack,not directed at simply hackers.

Cyber warfare is very real and can effect most every aspect of your life and our infrastructure

[Springfield]

1) Where did I mention Obama in the post that you're quoting? I made sure that the subject line was clear. It's not giving Obama permission; it's giving the president permission.

It's not like Obama's going to find Sasha watching Lady Gaga videos and cut off the entire Internet, people.

There.

2) The semantics aren't important. After all, the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists, they were just hijackers, right?

3) Of course there will be collateral damage. It's a tourniquet for the internet. The whole point is to stop the damage. And, with all due respect, I'll take the Pentagon's advice over Norton's. I think that they know a wee bit more about other nations'/terrorists' modes of attack. It's not just going to be used when someone is trying to steal information; it'll be used when someone is turning off power, changing algorithms used to determine safe levels of chemicals in drinking water/air supplies, altering Wall Street, etc.

I'm on board with labeling people who want to kill Americans as terrorists. It's just that ever since we went to war against terrorists, there are more and more sub-terrorist groups popping up. But you are right, it is just semantics.

As far as point 3. I agree on some and I disagree on others. I trust the Pentagon's intelligence. I think that they are perfectly capable of finding out the risks that we the people aren't supposed to know about. I personally think that the private sector is more capable of internet security as a whole though. There are hundreds of companies out there for just that purpose.

For the most part, the question is, what are these organizations doing to prevent a cyberterrorist attack? What sort of security does Wall St. have? What sort of security does Dominion Power have? The web security for these organizations are the first (and likely last) line of defense against some sort of attack.

[NavyDave]

And on a side note, why are we so insistent as a society to label everything as "terrorist". Cyberterrorist? Ecoterrorist? These are heavy words we are giving to things that in my opinion don't merit it. It's almost as if we want to make these people out to be more dangerous than they actually are.

Why are liberals so determined to downplay actual threats and then have a cow when a state for example wants to defend their borders?

Heck some fools thought they needed to know every action done by the previous administration to prevent the sequel of 9-11 and because of the administration batting 1.000 some people became complacent and in a lot of cases forgot and went back to a 9-10 mindset.

Cyber-terrorists should we ignore the Chinese hackers that were able to infect the pentagon last year? Or the euros that hacked Visa accounts or those who used credit cards to pay for grocery deliveries online cough Giant foods and did the credit card scam at Cheesecake factory downtown just blow by you?

Eco terrorists like E.L.F gets away with burning down new homes (in the name of preventing urban sprawl) or destroying SUV dealerships. Shame those car dealers can't use electrified fences or other booby traps to take these Man made disaster makers out.

And what do you call people who will try to sink ships with people on them to save dolphins or whales?

[NavyDave]

I seriously doubt it would happen, because how else could smear sites and propoganda pushers like Move on.org or mediamatters get their halftruths and out of context info out?

[ACW]

Huh???????