Shutting Down INTERNET During/Prior to Election(s), Votes?

[mrpacifica]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

[sironin]

Turning off the internet is almost impossible to actually do. That's basically the point of it.

[jbthe20th]

Yeah! And what if they raised the terrorism threat level right before the elections?

[Bluenose177]

look what happened in Iran

they tried to supress the news, people still found a way to find out what was going on and co-ordinate protests.

[Dr BloodMoney]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

Just like the leftest loons claimed Bush was going to do in 04 and 08. It was silly for them to say it then, it's silly now to say it.....

[avergbear]

Turning off the internet is almost impossible to actually do. That's basically the point of it.

Not if ISPs are ordered to pull the plug on subscribers.

Not many are able to get around that. A few, but the masses would be left in the dark.

[Vic Daring]

Oooohhhhhh!!! The horrible ACORN monster!

(You folks do realize nobody is buying that little scary story but you...right?)

[avergbear]

look what happened in Iran

they tried to supress the news, people still found a way to find out what was going on and co-ordinate protests.

Yes, and only a few of them were shot.

Nothing to worry about.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

It's impossible to shut down the internet; that's the beauty of distributed networking.

I mean, I guess it would be possible if you physically seized the servers at universities across the country, but even then it would be forty-eight hours before the lines were simply re-routed. Not to mention, even if you could shut down the internet, it easily spreads to SMS messaging, the mobile internet, etc.

[FreedomRing]

Turning off the internet is almost impossible to actually do. That's basically the point of it.

They don't have to shut it down completely. They can always filter it like China in order to protect us from "fishy rumors" and misinformation.

Because the first amendment doesn't cover such things.

[Mohawk5]

Never gonna happen.

[Bluenose177]

Yes, and only a few of them were shot.

Nothing to worry about.

acceptable losses for the totalitarian regime


I'm sure Chairma Obamao was paying attention to the news

[rhet 2]

Never gonna happen.

One more CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY: one more cause to impeach, indict, and convict

Could these ANIMALS dump still more **** on the first amendment than they already have?

Oh, yeah, the list of their HATRED for human rights is not yet complete -- but it's getting there really really really fast.

BTW: they don't have to SUCCEED in their crimes -- the very fact that they'd even THINK about such a disgustingly brutal bit of treachery is sufficient to brand them for the MANIACS they truly are.

[hwyflier]

People, they can't even shut down the Pirate Bay......

[ddye]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...
There were imbeciles worrying about stupid crap like this when Bush was President. :rolleyes:

Doug

[Buffalo]

Has Bush lifted Marshall law yet so we can resume living normally. Oh wait, that never happened despite the dire warnings of far lefty whackos. Hmmmm.

[FreedomRing]

People, they can't even shut down the Pirate Bay......

Because they're not trying?

[FreedomRing]

There were imbeciles worrying about stupid crap like this when Bush was President. :rolleyes:

"Stupid crap" like the first amendment?

[Agent655]

Maybe the administration learned from Iran and their issues during hte last election to control the population.....

[ddye]

"Stupid crap" like the first amendment?
No, "stupid crap" like idiot drama queens imagining themselves as Brave Freedom Fighters combating the Evil Forces of Obama's villainous minions.

Don't worry, the idiot left did it during Bush's term, it's not surprising that the idiot right fantasizes about it now.

Doug

[Vaard]

Never gonna happen.

you can stop apologizing and making excuses for obama now.......

[FreedomRing]

No, "stupid crap" like idiot drama queens imagining themselves as Brave Freedom Fighters combating the Evil Forces of Obama's villainous minions.

So you think it's okay that many of the czars are admitted communists?

Is it okay that the administration was asking people to turn in political dissenters on whitehouse.gov?

Is it okay that they want control of internet networks during a "cyberspace emergency"?

Will it be okay when they try to pass some form of the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Will it be okay when they try to confiscate your guns?

At what point do you stop towing the party line?

[Buffalo]

So you think it's okay that many of the czars are admitted communists?

Is it okay that the administration was asking people to turn in political dissenters on whitehouse.gov?

Is it okay that they want control of internet networks during a "cyberspace emergency"?

Will it be okay when they try to pass some form of the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Will it be okay when they try to confiscate your guns?

At what point do you stop towing the party line?
They still allow access from FEMA camps?

[cmorlan]

Turning off the internet is almost impossible to actually do. That's basically the point of it.

You cant Shut down the net but you can prevent access to it by having ISP deny service to people the only way on the net would be if you were already on the backbone or from another country were the us couldn't control. I"m not saying they are going to do it but I wont say it cant be done

[ddye]

So you think it's okay that many of the czars are admitted communists?

Is it okay that the administration was asking people to turn in political dissenters on whitehouse.gov?

Is it okay that they want control of internet networks during a "cyberspace emergency"?

Will it be okay when they try to pass some form of the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Will it be okay when they try to confiscate your guns?

At what point do you stop towing the party line?
When your side stops perpetuating stupid rumors that make your side look as stupid as the far left looked when THEY did it?

Doug

[cmorlan]

One more CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY: one more cause to impeach, indict, and convict

Could these ANIMALS dump still more **** on the first amendment than they already have?

Oh, yeah, the list of their HATRED for human rights is not yet complete -- but it's getting there really really really fast.

BTW: they don't have to SUCCEED in their crimes -- the very fact that they'd even THINK about such a disgustingly brutal bit of treachery is sufficient to brand them for the MANIACS they truly are.

I agree the crackpots who proposed this bill need to be sent home but it will never pass in a million years.

[FreedomRing]

When your side stops perpetuating stupid rumors that make your side look as stupid as the far left looked when THEY did it?

Stupid rumors? Like the one about whitehouse.gov asking for the emails and web addresses of people spreading misinformation?

[PSBandit]

Anything is possible with a marxist POTUS.

[toreyj01]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

http://dev.nuclearrooster.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/epic_fail-224x300.jpg

[sironin]

You cant Shut down the net but you can prevent access to it by having ISP deny service to people the only way on the net would be if you were already on the backbone or from another country were the us couldn't control. I"m not saying they are going to do it but I wont say it cant be done

Just making the calls to that many service providers (just the ones in the US) would be a monumental task all by itself. And some ISPs are actually community/individually owned, so there may not necessarily even be cooperation there. Especially without an ironclad promise of compensation.

And then there is milnet. I don't think they'd want to shut that down, even if it were a source of some of the attacks.

[WickedKoala]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

You don't know much about how the internet works do you?

http://theappslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-internet-a-series-of-tubes-300x262.jpg

[Fitz]

You don't know much about how the internet works do you?

http://theappslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-internet-a-series-of-tubes-300x262.jpg
I believe it's actually a big truck
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:dnLkFbQfWux9lM:http://long-haul-truck-insurance.com/yabb/Attachments/BIG_Truck.jpg

[driabyor]

Hackers would have it back running about 2 seconds after orbamer pushed the button

[fallenturtle]

Anything is possible with a marxist POTUS.
You can believe anything is possible when you're detached from reality.

[fallenturtle]

Dear Mr. President, I like you... but don't push it.

[lsue]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...




Saul Alinsky taught him well, it seems. The people who wee wee'd to high
heaven because they thought Bush was going to listen in to their phone
calls will think the loss of every right in the constitution is hunky dory as long
as it's their guy doing it.


This country is soooooooooooo toast.

[Kea]

Stupid rumors? Like the one about whitehouse.gov asking for the emails and web addresses of people spreading misinformation?

Like the one about Senator Rockefellar looking into providing a bill that will give the POTUS the power to shut down the net in any 'emergency situation"?

I didn't know flag@whitehouse.gov was a rumor. Silly me. Another misinformed unfortunate.

[lsue]

It's impossible to shut down the internet; that's the beauty of distributed networking.

I mean, I guess it would be possible if you physically seized the servers at universities across the country, but even then it would be forty-eight hours before the lines were simply re-routed. Not to mention, even if you could shut down the internet, it easily spreads to SMS messaging, the mobile internet, etc.



Liberals are such trusting little souls nowadays. :think:

[RedStatePaPa]

You don't know much about how the internet works do you?

http://theappslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-internet-a-series-of-tubes-300x262.jpg

Maybe you should show that to the fools that put the bill together. They think they can do it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/

"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."
Suddenly the threats are real and our enemies will never rest. And Sen Rockefeller was the bastard that went to the ME in 2002 and told several countries including Syria and Turkey that he thought Bush was going to attack Iraq. :evil:

[mrpacifica]

just saying...they could create a crisis...at the right time...for misinformation..'cause the 2010 and 2012 elections will be brutal with talk radio internet cable tv and tv ads...they could creat a fake crisis that a breach has occurred and shut down voices and dissent via internet like china iran etc... talk radio can defeat them in 2010 and 2012...especially if enemployment is high..economy in tank spending etc... powerful to use during election time...

[Dipperdap]

Considering most folks understanding of the internet. You could pop most of them off by shutting down the or disconnecting the dns root clusters in this country. Or you could just kill the backbone routing. Not too awfully hard to do if you have the keys to the kingdom like the government already has. Think info-con level 2.

[merickson]

I remember when fear and concern were expressed about Bush using the Patriot Act to delay/cancel the 2004 election. Along with the sub-theme that DiBold would make the cancelation unnesesary.

Its good to see that extreme paranoia and distrust of the people's choice has no party affiliation.

[Dipperdap]

Originally Posted by Dipperdap View Post
Considering most folks understanding of the internet. You could pop most of them off by shutting down the or disconnecting the dns root clusters in this country. Or you could just kill the backbone routing. Not too awfully hard to do if you have the keys to the kingdom like the government already has. Think info-con level 2.


Top level domain DNS servers are so heavily clustered and redundant; that i'm pretty sure that short of nuclear holocaust, there's no practical way to carry this out.

Please note, that's why I said "clusters". Killing off few key backbone router clusters can take down most of the internet traffic in this country.

[George Walton]

Shutting Down INTERNET During/Prior to Election(s), Votes?

democrats can't let Conservative websites like this, or Conservative talk radio, etc, get in the way of winning a good old fashion American election now can they?

.

[rhet 2]

Please note, that's why I said "clusters". Killing off few key backbone router clusters can take down most of the internet traffic in this country.

Not to mention the catastrophe for commerce and industry. PAPERWORK is now a "dead art" -- everything is done via the Internet, right down to and including stock purchases, bill paying, checking and savings; even wills and business transactions and interviews are done on-line.

Short-sighted ignorance AGAIN strikes the "brilliant NOT thinkers" of the Obama "Ship of Total Fools."

In point of fact, do we even need Congress to vote on their dumbass proposals? We the People could vote on every single solitary social policy proposed right on the Internet. Hell, we could even write our own proposals and submit for public vote. :mrgreen:

[wiley8425]

Someone needs to inform the jokers in our government how things actually work. The internet doesn't work like a Staples commercial. There is no magic "off" button... Idiots.

[Constantine the Great]

While siezing the internet might be impossible, there is no sane reason for even attempting to consolidate such broad powers unless one were power hungry.

[windstar3x3]

yankeedoodled:
KGB Teddy recognized that even in time of war his loyalties to our enemies exceeded his loyalties to his own country, same as with democrats with Muslims. They get consideration, sympathies and even the worst of them sent to Bermuda for luxury accomodations for terrorism against America.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200610/NAT20061020b.html

[hillary also below]


KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

[wiley8425]

Hackers would have it back running about 2 seconds after orbamer pushed the button

There is no button. Stop drinking the kool aid.

[rhet 2]

Someone needs to inform the jokers in our government how things actually work. The internet doesn't work like a Staples commercial. There is no magic "off" button... Idiots.

OBSOLETE idiots, at that.

With the Internet, who needs Congress? We can vote on stuff directly, since it no longer takes 6 months for news to get around the country.

DISBAND CONGRESS: open a federal internet site where we can write our own laws and vote on them directly. :mrgreen:

[Dipperdap]

People, they can't even shut down the Pirate Bay......

Pirate bay is in Sweden.

[AeroEngineer]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

What does ACORN have to do with anything you mentioned?

[merickson]

DISBAND CONGRESS: open a federal internet site where we can write our own laws and vote on them directly. :mrgreen:
Hmm....War and peace, billion dollar budgets, veteran's benefits, Supreme Court justices; all decided like the winner of American Idol.

Interesting notion.

[KEK]

Obama can't shut down the Internet...Al Gore won't let him. Haha!:dance:

[don_p]

It's impossible to shut down the internet; that's the beauty of distributed networking.

I mean, I guess it would be possible if you physically seized the servers at universities across the country, but even then it would be forty-eight hours before the lines were simply re-routed. Not to mention, even if you could shut down the internet, it easily spreads to SMS messaging, the mobile internet, etc.

You don't have to do anything to the servers. Just order the main providers to shut down the backbone core routers and the net is effectively down. That shuts down mobile internet just as effectively as all the web and email traffic.

[don_p]

Just making the calls to that many service providers (just the ones in the US) would be a monumental task all by itself. And some ISPs are actually community/individually owned, so there may not necessarily even be cooperation there. Especially without an ironclad promise of compensation.

And then there is milnet. I don't think they'd want to shut that down, even if it were a source of some of the attacks.

How many backbone providers do you think there are? They are not going to worry about anything except the big providers. Order them to shut down the core routers and the net is effectively down for most people outside of their own network.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Liberals are such trusting little souls nowadays. :think:

No one can control the internet. Totalitarian governments that own the hardware and are the telecom company can't control it. We certainly can't. We don't even have one standard protocol.

Ubiquitous, persistent distributed networks are basically impossible to stop.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

You don't have to do anything to the servers. Just order the main providers to shut down the backbone core routers and the net is effectively down. That shuts down mobile internet just as effectively as all the web and email traffic.

You would have to get dozens and dozens of companies to sign off on that and do it simultaneously, and every hour it was shut down their stock nosedives. Never ever ever gonna happen.

[Lee Kington]

You would have to get dozens and dozens of companies to sign off on that and do it simultaneously, and every hour it was shut down their stock nosedives. Never ever ever gonna happen. Not to mention the billions of dollars of trade conducted via the Internet everyday. Talk about a nosedive in the economy.

[TerriC]

If it is impossible to do, and this administration would never do such a thing, why do they want the POWER to do it?

What kind of cyber emergency would require such a massive shut down?

[old guy]

just saying...they could create a crisis...at the right time...for misinformation..'cause the 2010 and 2012 elections will be brutal with talk radio internet cable tv and tv ads...they could creat a fake crisis that a breach has occurred and shut down voices and dissent via internet like china iran etc... talk radio can defeat them in 2010 and 2012...especially if enemployment is high..economy in tank spending etc... powerful to use during election time...



just saying. some conservatives have there shorts so tight its cutting off bloodflow to their brains. thats the only way to explain how some of them will buy into any conspiracy theory.

[Kegler300]

Why would the government even contemplate the need for this authority? The Department of Defense, the Pentagon, U.S. Military, etc., are constantly and continuously under cyber attack and our systems are not shut down. There's more to this than meets the eye...

[TerriC]

Why would the government even contemplate the need for this authority? The Department of Defense, the Pentagon, U.S. Military, etc., are constantly and continuously under cyber attack and our systems are not shut down. There's more to this than meets the eye...

So why couldnt they just shut down THEIR systems, not the entire country?

[TerriC]

If it is impossible to do, and this administration would never do such a thing, why do they want the POWER to do it?

What kind of cyber emergency would require such a massive shut down?

I repeat....

[ltravisjr]

Those that are arguing against this threat are offering up only two arguments: (1) name calling and (2) saying the threat is not feasible anyway.

The fact is that a bill has been drafted that does seek to give the president the authority to disconnect private computers from the internet. That's irrefutible and whether it could happen or not doesn't quell my uneasiness that our leaders, regardless of which party, would even consider it. What else could they consider that could be feasible? The "unfeasibilty" argument is deflection. The name calling does not concern me.

[FreedomRing]

Yeah, if it's not feasible, then what's the point of the bill?

[UK Glenmont]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...

got to admit, good tactic.

will he do it?

i dont know, thats the scary part.

[TerriC]

Those that are arguing against this threat are offering up only two arguments: (1) name calling and (2) saying the threat is not feasible anyway.

The fact is that a bill has been drafted that does seek to give the president the authority to disconnect private computers from the internet. That's irrefutible and whether it could happen or not doesn't quell my uneasiness that our leaders, regardless of which party, would even consider it. What else could they consider that could be feasible? The "unfeasibilty" argument is deflection. The name calling does not concern me.

Exactly my point. I was just hoping one of the libs on here could answer a perfectly simple question. But as usual, their arguments consist of name calling and ridiculing.

[Billy_Bob]

Those that are arguing against this threat are offering up only two arguments: (1) name calling and (2) saying the threat is not feasible anyway.

The fact is that a bill has been drafted that does seek to give the president the authority to disconnect private computers from the internet. That's irrefutible and whether it could happen or not doesn't quell my uneasiness that our leaders, regardless of which party, would even consider it. What else could they consider that could be feasible? The "unfeasibilty" argument is deflection. The name calling does not concern me.

The bill specifically gives control of your PRIVATE networks to the government. and they can disconnect YOUR PRIVATE NETWORK from everything.... If they see your network as a THREAT they can TURN YOU OFF>...:wall:

Control over Sean, Rush, and anyone else who uses the internet to spur debate and thought.....Obama is just bold enough to turn of the Hannity site because it is a "threat" to his agenda....

The Bill does not define what a "threat" is only that presidential decree is necessary to turn off a system... Vega reasons to use this authority and ultimate defined power to take over private networks...

Reminds me of Banks, Auto makers, Health Care, etc..... Any reason to TAKE OVER is fine..... One more step in controlling the means of production in the US

[Stantz]

it is NOT POSSIBLE to shut down the world's largest distributed network.
At this point even if you demolished ICANN, you will not shut down the internet, it's about as possible as shutting down all the streets, highways, and byways on the planet.

[Billy_Bob]

it is NOT POSSIBLE to shut down the world's largest distributed network.
At this point even if you demolished ICANN, you will not shut down the internet, it's about as possible as shutting down all the streets, highways, and byways on the planet.

The bill drafted is talking about US companies and PRIVATE NETWORKS... disconnecting those they find as a "threat"

[UK Glenmont]

it is NOT POSSIBLE to shut down the world's largest distributed network.
At this point even if you demolished ICANN, you will not shut down the internet, it's about as possible as shutting down all the streets, highways, and byways on the planet.

case in point, The Pirate Bay.

dont mess with the swedes.

they used to be vikings.

[Stantz]

The bill drafted is talking about US companies and PRIVATE NETWORKS... disconnecting those they find as a "threat"
the practice of disconnecting private networks and IP banning and allocating has been going on since the internet was started, the actual root file at ICANN is controlled by the US government.
Millions and Millions of IP addresses, billions of users, spread across every country on the planet, there is no central switch to turn off anymore (actually in the mid to late 1990s cutting off the root DNS servers in California would have done the trick, but not anymore) .
No central government or body can ever shut the internet off.

[Billy_Bob]

the practice of disconnecting private networks and IP banning and allocating has been going on since the internet was started, the actual root file at ICANN is controlled by the US government.
Millions and Millions of IP addresses, billions of users, spread across every country on the planet, there is no central switch to turn off anymore (actually in the mid to late 1990s cutting off the root DNS servers in California would have done the trick, but not anymore) .
No central government or body can ever shut the internet off.

The problem is the US government is trying to legislate it into being.... CHINA has tried and failed to control their populace... They wont even take a lesson from another Communist country as this is a no go...

[Billy_Bob]

the practice of disconnecting private networks and IP banning and allocating has been going on since the internet was started, the actual root file at ICANN is controlled by the US government.
Millions and Millions of IP addresses, billions of users, spread across every country on the planet, there is no central switch to turn off anymore (actually in the mid to late 1990s cutting off the root DNS servers in California would have done the trick, but not anymore) .
No central government or body can ever shut the internet off.

But one high level EMP pulse would turn off the whole grid...

[don_p]

You would have to get dozens and dozens of companies to sign off on that and do it simultaneously, and every hour it was shut down their stock nosedives. Never ever ever gonna happen.

When I used to track backbone traffic daily (now more of a manager), somewhere around 80% of traffic went through 3 companies routers.

Following legal orders to either turn off the routers or to block certain traffic, will not likely affect their stocks noticeably.

[Stantz]

But one high level EMP pulse would turn off the whole grid...

yes in SciFi land it absolutely could.
A non-nuclear EMP pulse that can cover any serious distance does not exist (forget about the whole planet, which you would need to do to 'take out' the internet)

ofcourse you could try a worldwide nuclear EMP pulse which would be much more effective, however besides shutting down the internet, it will also fry most living things on the planet.

[don_p]

So why couldnt they just shut down THEIR systems, not the entire country?

Well, that is what they would do if their concern was protecting THEIR systems. And that has happened before, quite notably in the early days with a worm. But, the gov't might also be trying to protect national security in case of targets on banks, hopsitals, etc.

The reality is that this bill is not needed. The big boys will shut down routers when needed to so that they can protect their butts and their customers. And they will do it for the financial incentive of that is what they are paid to do.

[Stantz]

When I used to track backbone traffic daily (now more of a manager), somewhere around 80% of traffic went through 3 companies routers.

Following legal orders to either turn off the routers or to block certain traffic, will not likely affect their stocks noticeably.

That has actually changed quite a bit, though main backbone traffic is still owned by a few corporations there are no many alternate routes, and at most if you ordered companies to shut down routers or even somehow found a way to take down things like GEANET and Internet2, you can AT MOST isolate certain parts of the internet. shutting it down , is just not possible

[don_p]

This hasn't been mentioned yet, but everyone's also ignoring the original transmission medium of the internet...the phone line.

All you'd need is a modem, and a working DNS lookup table (which are replicated in too many places to control.)

To "shut down the internet" you'd literally have to stop all (wired) phone communication as well.

Modems won't do any good, just like mobile internet devices if the main routers are shut down or blocking the traffic. The modem only gets you to your ISP and then the traffic still has to go from there across the backbone.

[TerriC]

When I used to track backbone traffic daily (now more of a manager), somewhere around 80% of traffic went through 3 companies routers.

Following legal orders to either turn off the routers or to block certain traffic, will not likely affect their stocks noticeably.

Correct, under threat of the government, by order of the Pres. There wouldnt be much of a choice. And I dont think Obama would give a crap about their stock!

[Billy_Bob]

yes in SciFi land it absolutely could.
A non-nuclear EMP pulse that can cover any serious distance does not exist (forget about the whole planet, which you would need to do to 'take out' the internet)

ofcourse you could try a worldwide nuclear EMP pulse which would be much more effective, however besides shutting down the internet, it will also fry most living things on the planet.

I failed at my attempt at sarcasm dint i....

[don_p]

That has actually changed quite a bit, though main backbone traffic is still owned by a few corporations there are no many alternate routes, and at most if you ordered companies to shut down routers or even somehow found a way to take down things like GEANET and Internet2, you can AT MOST isolate certain parts of the internet. shutting it down , is just not possible

Due to the distributed nature of the network (originally designed to handle having pieces of it destroyed in a nuclear war) it would be very difficult to shut it down completely. However, a quick call to a dozen companies could have the vast majority of all users in the US down within very short order.

[Stantz]

I failed at my attempt at sarcasm dint i....
Sir , any sarcasm presented on this or any other forums MUST be followed by at least a winky face or the following rolling googly eyes emoticon :rolleyes:

(Internet Law 22 Subsection 40)

[don_p]

Yeah, if it's not feasible, then what's the point of the bill?

That is a good question? Is it just misguided prevention planning with honest intent? Is it just stupidity? Or is it setting things in place for controlling certain types of communication? I hope it is the first, believe it is the second. I really hope it isn't the third.

[Stantz]

Due to the distributed nature of the network (originally designed to handle having pieces of it destroyed in a nuclear war) it would be very difficult to shut it down completely. However, a quick call to a dozen companies could have the vast majority of all users in the US down within very short order.
a good amount of them yes (still this does not constitute shutting down the internet).
What i think people do not realize is that the topography and most importantly the naming and IP allocation has always been controlled to some degree by the government.
ICANN which works under a contract with the US Dept of Commerce actually controls IP address allocation, country code assignments, and DNS root server (which is not centralized any more)
Before ICANN was formed to take over these takes it was done by a scientific entity out in California under a contract with the US dept of defense.

The IP address on your computer right now is assigned to you by your ISP which in turn is assigned blocks of IP addresses from major backbone and bandwidth providers which is assigned IP addresses from ICANN (or if you live in another country they get the IPs assigned by a government agency which is assigned the IPs from ICANN).

The root naming itself though now a massive network of DNS servers still goes back to the main internet root file.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

When I used to track backbone traffic daily (now more of a manager), somewhere around 80% of traffic went through 3 companies routers.

Following legal orders to either turn off the routers or to block certain traffic, will not likely affect their stocks noticeably.

What you're missing is that that would mean cutting off hundreds of companies, who would implode within a day or two of this happening.

In an emergency, the government is going to try to shut off the internet; they're going to try to keep it running at all costs. The economic costs of a netwar attack on American nets, or shutting it down for whatever fascist scenario y'all are stressing, would destroy the economy. Completely. And the rest of the world would follow, because we are the chokepoint of the globalized world.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Due to the distributed nature of the network (originally designed to handle having pieces of it destroyed in a nuclear war) it would be very difficult to shut it down completely. However, a quick call to a dozen companies could have the vast majority of all users in the US down within very short order.

But why would these companies commit economic suicide?

[UK Glenmont]

for what its worth, kim komando opened her show extremely concerned about this bill.

you either know her or you dont, she is NOT political, shes a geek.

[WickedKoala]

But why would these companies commit economic suicide?

Well you see at this point in the fairytale Obama is a dictator with his own Schutzstaffel, so they would have no choice.

[hailreagan]

What you're missing is that that would mean cutting off hundreds of companies, who would implode within a day or two of this happening.

In an emergency, the government is going to try to shut off the internet; they're going to try to keep it running at all costs. The economic costs of a netwar attack on American nets, or shutting it down for whatever fascist scenario y'all are stressing, would destroy the economy. Completely. And the rest of the world would follow, because we are the chokepoint of the globalized world.


And when have governments ever destroyed economies by their actions..............wait a minute........

[don_p]

But why would these companies commit economic suicide?

Let's see, obeying the law might be a reason? Many are willing to actually do that.

[don_p]

What you're missing is that that would mean cutting off hundreds of companies, who would implode within a day or two of this happening.

In an emergency, the government is going to try to shut off the internet; they're going to try to keep it running at all costs. The economic costs of a netwar attack on American nets, or shutting it down for whatever fascist scenario y'all are stressing, would destroy the economy. Completely. And the rest of the world would follow, because we are the chokepoint of the globalized world.

I am not missing the dire consequences of doing it. I understand them very well. I also understand the dire consequences of running up the deficit as we have been doing and apparently are trying to do in ever larger amounts faster than ever conceived before.

What you seem to be missing is that there is a bill with the intent of giving the government the legal right to shut down and/or disable large portions of the Internet. I would hope that the sponsors of this bill would understand the implications of doing this as well as the fact that, in terms of security, it would almost certainly never need to be done at the point of legal force.

You say it can't be done and emphasize the cost. So what do you think is the purpose of the bill? As I said:
Is it just misguided prevention planning with honest intent? Is it just stupidity? Or is it setting things in place for controlling certain types of communication? I hope it is the first, believe it is the second. I really hope it isn't the third.

[DaveKlassix]

Wouldn't Hussein have to go through AlGore to turn off the internet?

[wiley8425]

Pirate bay is in Sweden.

So what? The US Government can't even block access to their site, let alone shut it down.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Let's see, obeying the law might be a reason? Many are willing to actually do that.

Not enough to destroy their companies.

[DLaw911]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...They said almost the same or similar things about Bush. Too much paranoia running lose in the world. Acorn - schmaycorn.

[PelosiisaLOSER]

THINK of IRAN getting a NUCLEAR WEAPON along BOTH HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH......In such an event WHY WOULDN'T ODUMBO SEIZE THE NET so as to PREVENT WARNING FROM GOING OUT???????
THAT would be MY FIRST FIRST HINT something was about to go down HARD....

[don_p]

Not enough to destroy their companies.

A federal agent comes in with orders for you to shut down and and gives the reason of national security and you think that Joe Blow is going to say, "No mister agent and 20 of your armed friends. I am going to jail instead so that my employer might not lose any stock value." Sorry, you are living in fantasy world. That employee seeing the federal agent with legal orders for him to shut down will do so.

[don_p]

THINK of IRAN getting a NUCLEAR WEAPON along BOTH HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH......In such an event WHY WOULDN'T ODUMBO SEIZE THE NET so as to PREVENT WARNING FROM GOING OUT???????
THAT would be MY FIRST FIRST HINT something was about to go down HARD....

Why wouldn't they seize the net to prevent a warning? Why would there be a warning from the net? You don't really think that the orders from the White House to the people pushing the button are unencrypted messages sent on the Internet, do you? Or are you afraid that the White House would like to prevent people from hearing that those who hate us and want to exterminate us and our way of life until they can use such weapons against us? Either way, it doesn't make any sense.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

While siezing the internet might be impossible, there is no sane reason for even attempting to consolidate such broad powers unless one were power hungry.

And there you have it.


Obamessiah could get a lot of people off the internet just by telling them to do it.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

They said almost the same or similar things about Bush. Too much paranoia running lose in the world. Acorn - schmaycorn.

So you would have had no problem with this same bill as a provision of the Patriot Act when President Bush was in office? LOL

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Not enough to destroy their companies.

The Bailout Party will save them and they know it.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The Bailout Party will save them and they know it.

It would collapse the entire world economy Sneaky. It's never gonna happen.

Besides, I oppose this bill, it's a stupid power grab remarkably similar to what the Republican Congress and Clinton did in the Nineties, but you can't shut down the internets, period.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

A federal agent comes in with orders for you to shut down and and gives the reason of national security and you think that Joe Blow is going to say, "No mister agent and 20 of your armed friends. I am going to jail instead so that my employer might not lose any stock value." Sorry, you are living in fantasy world. That employee seeing the federal agent with legal orders for him to shut down will do so.

Even if this ludicrous and highly improbable scenario came true, the company would get a court stay within six hours and word would spread through the rest of the industry like lightning and no one else would do it.

But it doesn't matter: They won't do it. Period. The government would strive mightily to keep the internet running during a netwar attack, not shut it down. I mean, the whole concept is absurd.

[harumph]

Turning off the internet is almost impossible to actually do. That's basically the point of it.

For kicks, look up EMP attack.
Yet they're wasting their time trying to regulate/stifle this country's communications.
If the same amount of energy was given to strengthening our security and hardening our infrastructure instead of chasing raced-based quotas and demonizing the right, this wouldn't be happening.

[don_p]

Even if this ludicrous and highly improbable scenario came true, the company would get a court stay within six hours and word would spread through the rest of the industry like lightning and no one else would do it.

But it doesn't matter: They won't do it. Period. The government would strive mightily to keep the internet running during a netwar attack, not shut it down. I mean, the whole concept is absurd.

Then what is the point of the bill? You keep saying it would never happen, so why introduce this legislation. What is the point? And I don't recall you saying you oppose the legislation. Do you?

[rory]

Just thought, he could easily declare, or "manufacture" a cybert threat/breach, declare an emergency, thus shut out all internet communications, emails, social networks, etc.. leading up to General Elections, etc...??????

ACORN anybody? Shut down talk radio, before elections, internet, etc...??? What's to stop "them" from creating a false emergency, etc...grid down etc...to close up the internet for several weeks, months, etc...

never know...
Remember when all you Cons thought it would be a grand idea to give a guy like Bush exceptional powers during a time of crisis, not a peep out of any of you.
Well as my boy Wright would say" The chickens, have come home to roost"

[don_p]

Then what is the point of the bill? You keep saying it would never happen, so why introduce this legislation. What is the point? And I don't recall you saying you oppose the legislation. Do you?

Tommy, thought I would ask the same question again.

[DavidC]

Turning off the internet is almost impossible to actually do. That's basically the point of it.


Oh?

And your service provider is?

[Sun]

Remember when all you Cons thought it would be a grand idea to give a guy like Bush exceptional powers during a time of crisis, not a peep out of any of you.
Well as my boy Wright would say" The chickens, have come home to roost"

Ha, ha, I wonder what you libs would say if Bush ever tried to shut down the internet?

[don_p]

Ha, ha, I wonder what you libs would say if Bush ever tried to shut down the internet?

They would have rightly screamed bloody murder.

[Sun]

They would have rightly screamed bloody murder.

This is true, but it doesn't seem to phase them when the Obama administration wants to do it.

George Bush was wrong on some things, but there is NO COMPARISON in anything he did to what Obama wants to do.

[don_p]

Still waiting for the why of doing this from the guys, especially Tommy, who seem to think that it could never happen and no one would try. So what is the point of the bill? And do you oppose the bill?

[rjhambone]

Yeah! And what if they raised the terrorism threat level right before the elections?

It only took three posts for the....

Buuuuuuuussssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[HeadOnStraight]

Not if ISPs are ordered to pull the plug on subscribers.

Not many are able to get around that. A few, but the masses would be left in the dark.
But that is not the point some on the left seem to be making, they say that giving the federal government the power to pull the plug on the internet is not that big a deal, because a few people might find a way around it.

[treadmill]

Of course Obama wants to control the Internet. If it is a source of power or freedom, he wants to control it.

[LibertyinAtl]

I say,
Sarcasm on--
ground all air traffic,tv and radio broadcasts,telephone and the internet.
Why not...
That would be the safest thing to do. Why do we always do things half-assed.
I say kill all com if your going to do it....
Sarcasm ---off

[sironin]

For kicks, look up EMP attack.
Yet they're wasting their time trying to regulate/stifle this country's communications.
If the same amount of energy was given to strengthening our security and hardening our infrastructure instead of chasing raced-based quotas and demonizing the right, this wouldn't be happening.

For kicks, look up NUCLEAR attack.
The internet was designed to survive both. Fiber optics is not susceptible to emp and is a large part of the internet backbone. Nuclear devastation would need to be total to take out the internet. Manual shutdown would require a week to mobilize sufficient military force (all of it, basically) to shutdown non-compliant links/servers. This would be compounded by the government & military needing to shutdown their own links as well. The enormous cost and permanent nature of obliterating non-compliant satellite feeds should highlight why this could never happen.

[TerriC]

Still waiting for the why of doing this from the guys, especially Tommy, who seem to think that it could never happen and no one would try. So what is the point of the bill? And do you oppose the bill?


So we still dont have an answer from the Libs. If it is impossible to do, and the administration would never do it, then why the bill?

Come on, at least make an effort!

[don_p]

For kicks, look up NUCLEAR attack.
The internet was designed to survive both. Fiber optics is not susceptible to emp and is a large part of the internet backbone. Nuclear devastation would need to be total to take out the internet. Manual shutdown would require a week to mobilize sufficient military force (all of it, basically) to shutdown non-compliant links/servers. This would be compounded by the government & military needing to shutdown their own links as well. The enormous cost and permanent nature of obliterating non-compliant satellite feeds should highlight why this could never happen.

You don't have to shut down every server or every link to basically make it unuseable. If all the main core routers are turned off or filter traffic (done in minutes) you won't be able to reach hannity.com from your home computer or mobile phone.

Some have suggested they could just modems and go dial up. Does anyone really think that there would be that much dial up capacity when the technology has dwindled for the last 10+ years? And someone is going to allow that many people sign up for modem accounts that fast? And even worse, so you get on your modem, good luck seeing anything beyond your ISP's homepage since anything else would have to go across the core routers on the backbone.

[don_p]

So we still dont have an answer from the Libs. If it is impossible to do, and the administration would never do it, then why the bill?

Come on, at least make an effort!

I think the problem is that they can't come up with any possible reason for the bill that isn't either really stupid or nefarious. I have more than 20 years experience in IT including at an ISP as well as gov't agencies and I certainly can't come up with a good reason.

[harumph]

For kicks, look up NUCLEAR attack.
The internet was designed to survive both. Fiber optics is not susceptible to emp and is a large part of the internet backbone. Nuclear devastation would need to be total to take out the internet. Manual shutdown would require a week to mobilize sufficient military force (all of it, basically) to shutdown non-compliant links/servers. This would be compounded by the government & military needing to shutdown their own links as well. The enormous cost and permanent nature of obliterating non-compliant satellite feeds should highlight why this could never happen.

An effective EMP would be a nuclear attack, albeit a high-altitude one. You are as strong as your weakest link. An EMP would cripple the nation. This administration has started taking steps to harden their own communications, but are strangely silent concerning our grid & domestic communications infrastructure. To dismiss the potential of a rogue nation using this as a means of attack is imprudent (if that's what you're arguing, that is).

[aep1974]

Just like the leftest loons claimed Bush was going to do in 04 and 08. It was silly for them to say it then, it's silly now to say it.....

Well, except for the fact that Jay Rockefeller has introduced a bill to give the President primary oversight of the internet in "emergency" situations (as defined by the federal gov't, of course).

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CBSNews.com has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Full article here (http://wcco.com/national/obama.cybersecurity.czar.2.1150214.html).

[TerriC]

I think the problem is that they can't come up with any possible reason for the bill that isn't either really stupid or nefarious. I have more than 20 years experience in IT including at an ISP as well as gov't agencies and I certainly can't come up with a good reason.


Yeah, my thoughts precisely.

[sironin]

You don't have to shut down every server or every link to basically make it unuseable. If all the main core routers are turned off or filter traffic (done in minutes) you won't be able to reach hannity.com from your home computer or mobile phone.

Some have suggested they could just modems and go dial up. Does anyone really think that there would be that much dial up capacity when the technology has dwindled for the last 10+ years? And someone is going to allow that many people sign up for modem accounts that fast? And even worse, so you get on your modem, good luck seeing anything beyond your ISP's homepage since anything else would have to go across the core routers on the backbone.

There aren't main core routers. There are core routes. You can shut them down and still have hundreds of secondary routes in seconds (that's basically the point of the thing). Traffic would slow perceptibly if you were to shut down all the routers along the fastest routes, but it wouldn't stop anything. Certainly you could isolate a good many people using this method, but you would have to start shooting down satellites and jamming a fairly broad spectrum of wireless transmission before you could reasonably claim shutdown.

[sironin]

An effective EMP would be a nuclear attack, albeit a high-altitude one. You are as strong as your weakest link. An EMP would cripple the nation. This administration has started taking steps to harden their own communications, but are strangely silent concerning our grid & domestic communications infrastructure. To dismiss the potential of a rogue nation using this as a means of attack is imprudent (if that's what you're arguing, that is).

It would be more efficient, as the attacker, to simply nuke the entire country if they're already capable of putting a nuclear device over our airspace (in the hypothetical situation where an emp is supposed to disrupt largely redundant fiber optic networks).

Yes it is disconcerting that our legislators waste time writing retarded bills that grants them powers they already have for situations that cannot occur without far more urgent situations being prerequisite (such as anyone being able to loft a nuke into US airspace).

[harumph]

It would be more efficient, as the attacker, to simply nuke the entire country if they're already capable of putting a nuclear device over our airspace (in the hypothetical situation where an emp is supposed to disrupt largely redundant fiber optic networks).

Yes it is disconcerting that our legislators waste time writing retarded bills that grants them powers they already have for situations that cannot occur without far more urgent situations being prerequisite (such as anyone being able to loft a nuke into US airspace).

It takes far less ability to create an EMP than it does to pinpoint a nuke. All you need is someone with satellite launch capability, that could put a nuclear weapon in low orbit and simply detonate it.

But I agree with you. This is one retarded bill.

[PelosiisaLOSER]

Why wouldn't they seize the net to prevent a warning? Why would there be a warning from the net? You don't really think that the orders from the White House to the people pushing the button are unencrypted messages sent on the Internet, do you? Or are you afraid that the White House would like to prevent people from hearing that those who hate us and want to exterminate us and our way of life until they can use such weapons against us? Either way, it doesn't make any sense.
EVER hear of the BATTLE OF WALLOWA CANYON during the NEZ PERCE WAR??????
THE VERY FIRST TARGET was the BURGLAR!!!!!!
There then RESULTED COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the COMMUNICATIONS......The ROUT was ON!!!!To
MAXIMIZE CASULTIES you MUST CONCENTRATE your enemies force by denying them INFO....Even I KNOW THAT

[don_p]

There aren't main core routers. There are core routes. You can shut them down and still have hundreds of secondary routes in seconds (that's basically the point of the thing). Traffic would slow perceptibly if you were to shut down all the routers along the fastest routes, but it wouldn't stop anything. Certainly you could isolate a good many people using this method, but you would have to start shooting down satellites and jamming a fairly broad spectrum of wireless transmission before you could reasonably claim shutdown.

Sorry, you are wrong. This isn't about forcibly using nukes and shutting down satellites. We are talking about a bill that gives the President the legal right to block traffic. People will not just decide, "Oh I won't obey that law!" when federal agents are there with guns demanding compliance with the law.

[don_p]

It would be more efficient, as the attacker, to simply nuke the entire country if they're already capable of putting a nuclear device over our airspace (in the hypothetical situation where an emp is supposed to disrupt largely redundant fiber optic networks).

Yes it is disconcerting that our legislators waste time writing retarded bills that grants them powers they already have for situations that cannot occur without far more urgent situations being prerequisite (such as anyone being able to loft a nuke into US airspace).

So what is the point of the bill?

[Dipperdap]

So what? The US Government can't even block access to their site, let alone shut it down.

The government doesn't block any sights. That's what this bill will lead to.

[Dipperdap]

I think most folks are falling prey to the "its too big to shut down so who cares". This is the first step in an incremental war on the internet itself. The next step will be some "security measure " to protect "the children", or something other lame excuse. Don't let the camels nose under the tent......

[mrpacifica]

I think most folks are falling prey to the "its too big to shut down so who cares". This is the first step in an incremental war on the internet itself. The next step will be some "security measure " to protect "the children", or something other lame excuse. Don't let the camels nose under the tent......

good points!