Internet control

[Drysdale]

What now? What is the point of this bill?
It has'nt appeared on the floor yet apparently, but I'm just curious as to what the govt wants this control for? What could the govt stop that the companies could'nt stop themselves?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

[geni]

Large scale attack on other parts of the net that the company was finding profitable to host. Of course any such ISP would be extremely unlikely to be US based.

[oldhat]

What could the govt stop that the companies could'nt stop themselves?

A coordinated cyberattack by the Chinese government. I don't think it's a good idea to entrust American national security to stateless corporations like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

This bill makes sense to me but I think it should be re-written so it's less vague.

[JJM 777]

"Bill would give president emergency control of Internet"

Americans are just envious of how Asian leaders are handling the situation during troublesome times.

[a_unique_person]

A coordinated cyberattack by the Chinese government. I don't think it's a good idea to entrust American national security to stateless corporations like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

This bill makes sense to me but I think it should be re-written so it's less vague.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25866348-29277,00.html

ORGANISERS of the Melbourne International Film Festival have been forced to shut down online ticket sales after Chinese hackers booked out all film sessions on its website.
The attack comes as part of a mounting campaign against the screening of a documentary about exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.

Hackers broke into the festival's website soon after the launch of the 2009 festival, replacing festival information with the Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans.

Six Chinese-language movies have also been pulled out of the festival, leaving organisers with a logistical headache and the fear that Chinese film- makers will boycott the festival in future.

The festival's website reads: "Online sales are currently offline due to a denial of service attack of Chinese origin."

Spokeswoman Asha Holmes (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=29277&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=Asha%20Holmes) said all sessions on the site had posted "sold-out" messages about 9am (AEST) today.

She said it was not immediately known whether the rush on tickets was real. But when the bookings were traced to Chinese websites it soon became clear they were fake.


The internet is now an essential part of modern business.

[uruk]

Great. Give the President a massive denial of service switch.

You can launch a nation wide denial of service attack by making the President believe that there is going to be a massive cyber attack and the President himself will shut down the internet for you. Really smart.

And with the private sector networks shutdown that would mean that the only computer connected to the internet would be government networks. Which could make them more vunerable to attacks. And easier to find.

It's an idea that seems good in theory but may really suck in practice.


This bill is making my first amendment gland itch.

[INRM]

Well, Obama is of course claiming this is for the purpose of protecting us from cyber attacks. The question is how do we know this isn't bill isn't being crafted for abusive presidential practices?

If the internet could be completely controlled by the government it could be used for censorship and we could turn into China

[Eyeron]

First step:

Give emergency powers.

Second step:

Create emergency.

Third step:

Never relinquish emergency powers.

This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.

Woooo this is fun.

[Drysdale]

Yea, I've got a bad feeling about this too.

Lets be honest, the best and the brightest dont usually work in the govt.
They become entrepreneurs or work in the private sector where there is no ceiling on salary.

Now of course that does'nt apply to the politicians who get numerous handouts, but I think it does apply to technology.

[Upchurch]

I'm not too hot for this bill myself, but this thread is quickly heading to CT territory.

[theprestige]

As I pointed out on another recent thread about this bill, information networks are a legitimate battlefield. Why, out of all the battlefields in the world, should the Internet be the only one over which the President has no authority to wage war?

He has authority to wage war on land, at sea, and in the air. He has authority to wage war in Earth-orbital space. He has authority to wage war throughout the EM spectrum. He has authority to wage war with words, and with dollars.

If the Internet serves US national interests (which it does) and if the Internet can be used to threaten US national security (which it can), then why, if enemies of the US choose to wage war with the US via the Internet (which they will, if they have not already), should the President not have the authority to meet them on that battlefield?

Carrier groups yes, Marine expeditionary forces yes, strategic bombers yes, ballistic missile submarines yes, NORAD yes, Navy SEALs yes, PSYOP yes... Internet no?

[oldhat]

As I pointed out on another recent thread about this bill, information networks are a legitimate battlefield. Why, out of all the battlefields in the world, should the Internet be the only one over which the President has no authority to wage war?

Because glibertarians think the internet belongs to glibertarians and no one else.

[uruk]

As I pointed out on another recent thread about this bill, information networks are a legitimate battlefield. Why, out of all the battlefields in the world, should the Internet be the only one over which the President has no authority to wage war?

He has authority to wage war on land, at sea, and in the air. He has authority to wage war in Earth-orbital space. He has authority to wage war throughout the EM spectrum. He has authority to wage war with words, and with dollars.

If the Internet serves US national interests (which it does) and if the Internet can be used to threaten US national security (which it can), then why, if enemies of the US choose to wage war with the US via the Internet (which they will, if they have not already), should the President not have the authority to meet them on that battlefield?

Carrier groups yes, Marine expeditionary forces yes, strategic bombers yes, ballistic missile submarines yes, NORAD yes, Navy SEALs yes, PSYOP yes... Internet no?

The saying "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. You can't meet your enemy on the battelfield if the battlefield is shut down.

I think prevention, mitigation strategies and dilligence would be far more effective than doing something as drastic as shutting down the internet. Shutting down is just a "quick fix" solution that may do more harm than good.

Here are some examples of alternatives: http://www.cs3-inc.com/government-ddos-threat-and-solutions.pdf

Notice that more critical network systems are isolated from the internet. The concern here are government networks that are exposed to the internet.

[Dancing David]

Well, Obama is of course claiming this is for the purpose of protecting us from cyber attacks. The question is how do we know this isn't bill isn't being crafted for abusive presidential practices?

If the internet could be completely controlled by the government it could be used for censorship and we could turn into China

Obama citation?

[Dancing David]

First step:

Give emergency powers.

Second step:

Create emergency.

Third step:

Never relinquish emergency powers.

This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.

Woooo this is fun.


Wrong forum, you want CT.

[Dancing David]

Strangely this summary does not mention the control issue, it must be a later addition
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show

The full bill is here, it will take a while to read
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773

ETA
I am having a hard time finding the language of Sec. 201, the Senate does not post that.