|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
US President Barack Obama would be granted powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet under a new bill that describes the global internet as a US "national asset".
Local lobby groups and academics have rounded on the plan, saying that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.
The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by independent senator Joe Lieberman, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.
I guess we all forget that it's a bunch of Computer Linked together. Webpages we visit are hosted on those sites Servers. The way we access those pages either through our Broadband connection and or dial up connections.
We access those through our Internet provider/providers. So in Essence even in Obama had the ability to cut off the "Internet" which is impossible for our country there would have to be a connection made to all the internet providers in this country and out of this country. Even if there wasn't shutting down the massive server farms, and amount of time it would take to call and schedule this shutdown wouldn't help.
If a Terror attack did happen, the Virus's launched and attacks being used against us would infiltrate and destroy a good amount of data before everything got shutdown. The US Government does have the ability to "Cut" the "Hard lines" to there data and servers but the rest of the companies and "end users" would be the hardest hit if anything did happen.
So Obama having that ability technically doesn't bother me in anyway. It would be like having a car with no Engine. A Gun with no ammo, etc, etc. So let Congress And The Senate Debate all they want. It's a bunch of people who say they have the American People's interest @ hand when all there doing is getting paid to sit and look @ one another and make stupid of themselves and the people around them.
Well, not exactly.
To cripple the Internet, you just need to shut down a few core DNS servers and a few of the big routers. If the Government tells the phone companies to shut off routers, they will comply and most traffic will stop instantly.
Killing the core DNS servers takes a little longer as all servers cache information, but it will bring normal traffic to a halt. Deliberately poisoning them to give out bad addresses might be even worse.
Surely if those servers and routers were located outside of the US, this would resolve the problem?
Sure, the US may find a way to temporarily realise this plan, but ultimately the technology and know-how are too global to ever be truly eradicated. Competing servers and routers would appear in other parts of the world to compensate for the loss.
This is proposed by Lieberman as you say. Your title is misleading.
As the internet is global, surely all he could do is switch America off? What would be the point in that, when everywhere else was still online?
The US relies far more heavily on the internet than many other countries so who would be the worst hit if they shut themselves off from the rest of the world??
I found an article about it, this jumped out at me:
"the Obama administration pointedly stopped short of endorsing Lieberman's bill, called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA)"
There is an issue that much traffic is routed through the US because of the dominance of Google etc., and Microsoft generally. Another issue is the mechanics of the phone lines themselves, the owners of the satellites and undersea cables etc can effectively turn the internet into fragments where only those connected together are allowed to communicate. This could isolate the US and its connected friends I guess? Makes it easier to understand why most countries like to have their own systems in place I guess.
I love law-makers reactions with ignorance-based proposals like this. It's a dinosaur approach that simply cannot work by any measure at all. Like others note, all that will happen is that America's internet access will be severed.
The concept (of the internet) is so proven & integrated into the international economy, the technology so widely available, that even if one particular country decided to "switch off" the internet, any temporary affects to cyberspace would be offset by individuals and nations filling the gap with their own infrastructure.
Nice to see them wasting everyone's time and money...
Liebermann is a loose cannon. The people of Connecticut should hang their heads in shame for electing him.
FCC Will Tame the Internet—Or Kill It
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37779304?__sourc … ;par=yahoo
Published: Friday, 18 Jun 2010 | 12:07 PM ET
"For almost two decades the U.S. government has kept its meddlesome mudhooks off the Internet, freeing it to spread its kudzu-like tendrils into the global economy. And it worked.
. . . The FCC took a big step this week to end all of that. For the first time, the Federal Communications Commission proposes using a set of 75-year-old phone regulations to oversee the Net of the 21st century. . .
. . . This time around, the agency’s push is in direct contradiction to a ruling in April from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. . .
. . . Two months ago the DC appeals court unanimously agreed: the FCC had no such authority. What to do? Make it up!
. . . To do that, the FCC proposes a nifty little change in definitions. It wants to re-classify the Internet and say it no longer is an “information service”—which gets a light hand. Now the Net shall be called a “telecommunications service”—a phone service, basically, that gets subjected (and subjugated) to a lot more government oversight. . .
. . . The Obama Adminstration’s FCC, backing off an opportunity to expand its regulatory hegemony over a trillion-dollar industry? Why would we ever believe this FCC is capable of doing a wise thing like that?"
Wow, an interesting topic, I have not heard anything about this in UK. I will watch posts on this thread with interest. Thanks for raising the topic
"For almost two decades the U.S. government has kept its meddlesome mudhooks off the Internet'
Guess you never heard of the NSA or the Patriot Act, or theTotal Information Awareness Network...those are just 3 I know of from Bushco, how many more exist?
Not to mention the total stifling the Republican FCC did to radio.
This is not an Obama thing..in fact, with Lieberman in charge, you can be sure this is for the benefit of Israel. After all, they are bulding a Vatican sized spy compund over there...and they seem to want Jerusalem for the capital of the PNAC Nation. You people alwyas look at the wrong culprit. How convenient that you got Neo-Con central to keep you mis-informed.
Just wanted to mention as well, that something similar to this is a huge issue in Australia as well.
Last year our wonderful Federal Government decided to allow our state based Attorney Generals (effectively representatives of the Queen in England and have powers for sacking a State Premier and our Governor General has the power to sack a Prime Minister, only in the right circumstances and it happened in the 1970's)
Anyway, the politicos, with the approval of at least one AG, want to enlist a 'internet filter' for the benefit pf protecting our children from the nasties of the internet, music, pictures and videos of violence, hatred, porn et al.
The problem lies in the fact that testing of said program actually delivers more false positives, so some websites that are actually OK for children, occasionally get blocked.
Now I am all for protecting kids of our society but not to the point that I cannot use the internet in a way that I CHOOSE to use it.
If this filter gets into Australian Law, our adult use of the internet would be reduced to a rating system similar to using movie ratings (like PG-13 in the USA and classification age 12 in the UK).
Effectively just about reducing any and all kind of practical use. To give you an idea of how it may work, I would not even be able to view simple editorial articles, such as those produced by the printed media, for the simple fact that certain keywords would cause the article to be blocked from view.
The Australian Govt is not even allowing vote by the public, once all AG's agree (there is one holding out, who doesn't agree with the filter) they would move to put into law.
Thereby reducing my rights to be an active voice in the choice of using the internet how I want to use it (within the law of course) and thats just not on.
Maybe we should ensure that we always have enough liquid plum'r on hand in case the tubes get clogged?
I have to agree this is an interesting topic. Shutting down the internet for America wouldn't be just an inconvience it would have serious impact on how business will be conduct since we have relied on the internet for as long as we have. Banks and other businesses-lots of other business would much rather we get our bills by way of the internet then through the mail. Shopping now will be getting off the computer and getting in to the car. Need to ask a company about that product you bought-"now where did I put that phone number?"
On the other hand as someone already mentioned a virus that can destroy files on your computer, my computer isn't something you want to deal with it could lead to reformating your entire drive, so long baby pictures 5 years ago.
People would sell it illegally on the black market to the fiends lol Some sort of super wireless that connects to the rest of the world!
Just had a little think ( the stuff in my brain ....ouch)
Although I have had a rant about how bad it *may* get in Australia, it would not be as anywhere near as locked up as China's internet use (Very heavily govt regulated and no wonder Google pulled out of the country).
I seriously do not see how the US would have enough power to simply shut down the internet inside US borders and territories.
The technology is vast and widespread and would have no influence outside the US. If it did happen, even ham radio operators and other would work out a way to provide * black market wireless *.
If wireless comms was also shut down, that surely must have an impact on cell phone use. hmmmmm, just a thought and IMO.
by AnnCee7 years ago
President Chavez is creating a parallel bank, health and education programs, and a parallel to CNN - Telesur. The left-wing theory of creating parallel powers to break down and end the old order is taken to new...
by Faith Reaper4 years ago
Are you ever able to stay off the Internet for even just one whole day?This question came to me after another hubber answered another question about being on-line each and every day and how hard it is to not get...
by Onusonus6 years ago
Do you think that charity means government mandated redistribution of wealth at gun point? Or is charity a willful act of kindness?http://www.mrconservative.com/2012/02/1 … -to-obama/
by JON EWALL6 years ago
How does President Obama propose to give everyone '' a fair shot and a fair share'' in the country.On Dec. 06, 2011 President Obama in Osawatomie, Kansas declared the American middle class in jeopardy. The US is...
by fishskinfreak20088 years ago
OK, the question now becomes not "if" swine flu will strike, but "when" and 'how severe will the outbreak be?'
by ProCW9 years ago
1 for yes2 for no
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.