New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html

Can anyone verify this? "prisonplanet.com" doesn't sound like a very reputable source, but it does cite a specific bill.

If this is true, how can this in any way be supported? Is this anything other than a blatant attempt to limit freedom of speech?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.

Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.



I would oppose this if Reagan, Bush, or Jesus Christ proposed it, and Obama is no different.
 
Last edited:

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
How can one "shut down" the internet? AFAIK, we do not have a "National Firewall" to allow such and most (if not all) of the backbones / ISPs here are in private hands.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
The feds are already way ahead of any explicit regulatory mandate when it comes to "cybersecurity" anyways. The only question is if you want your federal internet controls on the books or off of them. ;)

And it's really not about a "kill switch". That's just an infantile sound bite for the troglodytes.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
How can one "shut down" the internet? AFAIK, we do not have a "National Firewall" to allow such and most (if not all) of the backbones / ISPs here are in private hands.

Mandating it and actually doing it are two different things. But if they're trying to mandate it, I'd be pretty pissed off.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
The feds are already way ahead of any explicit regulatory mandate when it comes to "cybersecurity" anyways. The only question is if you want your federal internet controls on the books or off of them. ;)

How so?
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
9
76
How can one "shut down" the internet? AFAIK, we do not have a "National Firewall" to allow such and most (if not all) of the backbones / ISPs here are in private hands.

If they flood the tubes with enough water no information will be able to pass through.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This does fit neatly into a conspiracy theory. First, get the public dependant on the internet, so that when the government declares martial law and makes a police state, the political organization that might have been there, such as local groups who meet (or much presence of newspapers or any media not owned by five corporation) , aren't in place, and the public is helpless without the internet. So all the media will be easily centrallized to say what the government wants. The purpose is anti-terrorism, of course.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
How can one "shut down" the internet? AFAIK, we do not have a "National Firewall" to allow such and most (if not all) of the backbones / ISPs here are in private hands.

There are many ways to do it. The easiest would be to stop BGP (does all the routing) neighbors/sessions, this capability could easily be added to router software.

And I'm pretty sure this idea has been floated before for national security response. Imagine if a huge cyber attack was being launched against us and the best response would be to shut down the internet?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
There are many ways to do it. The easiest would be to stop BGP (does all the routing) neighbors/sessions, this capability could easily be added to router software.

And I'm pretty sure this idea has been floated before for national security response. Imagine if a huge cyber attack was being launched against us and the best response would be to shut down the internet?

Forgive me, but if the entire world's population launched a cyber attack against us, we'd still have more than half of the total american porn sites up and running smoothly.

Joking aside, I just can't comprehend how any cyber-attack could be so malignant as to mandate shutting off the entire freaking internet.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Atreus21 said:
A little reading between the lines of wiretapping cases in the last 10-ish years, along with other trends in national security have made it pretty viable for the non-conspiracy theorists out there to believe that the NSA has dramatically increased its domestic operations over the last few years. TIA is one of those projects that never dies, no matter how many times it is voted down. It just keeps popping up under new names, achieving its goals piecemeal.
Joking aside, I just can't comprehend how any cyber-attack could be so malignant as to mandate shutting off the entire freaking internet.
To use a perfectly sensible quote that gets mocked by people who think precision is silly:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

[suspending any critical notions of what cyberattacks might realistically be intended to do, as well as many other facets of reality]
In the event of a major cyberattack that appeared to be of an appropriately large scale, it would be essentially impossible to assess it and react appropriately in any way other than just killing the whole thing. After all, the attacks that are visible are likely to be only part of whatever operation is being carried out. That being the case, it would only be possible to react to that part of the attack that was a diversion anyways. Of course if the intent of the attack were only to disrupt communications then that would be a mission accomplished, but then not shutting it down would probably be similarly disruptive too. However shutting it down would be a sensible defense against operations that had objectives other than simple disruption.[/suspension]

Then again this is all just fun hypothesizing. Maybe the country could use a good interweb holiday once in a while! :D
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Question though:

Can we accept that Martial Law might be necessary?

What should be excluded if Martial Law is found to be necessary?
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Imagine if a huge cyber attack was being launched against us and the best response would be to shut down the internet?

The network with the sensitive, classified info is already physically separated from the internet at the pentagon. There is no excuse for "shutting down" the internet, and if the government ever tried anything like that, I'd immediately suspect something fishy.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,370
10,684
136
How can one "shut down" the internet? AFAIK, we do not have a "National Firewall" to allow such and most (if not all) of the backbones / ISPs here are in private hands.

Government owns those "private" hands quite well.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Lieberman's had this hard on for years and has periodically introduced similar bills. They have never gone anywhere.