Does the internet belong to the US?

[Ss_J9_Goten]

Obama Lieberman certainly seems to think so.

 

[hide]

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.

 

Titled "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act", the bill stipulates any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

 

Lobby group TechAmerica told ZDNet it worried that the bill would give the US "absolute power" over the internet and create "unintended consequences".

 

One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".

 

He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".

 

"All our financial systems, all our security systems ... we're so reliant on the internet that if you shut it down there's a question of whether society will continue to operate normally anywhere in the Western world," Landfeldt said in a phone interview.

 

"By doing this they would do the terrorists the biggest favour ever because they would terrorise the rest of the world".

 

Landfeldt said the US would be the only country in the world with the ability to shut down the internet. He said such a move would be extremely difficult for the US to justify to other nations.

 

"Unfortunately, too much of the core of the internet resides in the US - let's put it this way, they cannot shut down machines in Australia, but they can completely isolate us and shut down certain core functions like the DNS ... they can render the internet fairly useless for the rest of the world," he said.

 

Senator Susan Collins, co-sponsor of the bill, has said: "We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11."

 

Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people".

 

He said that, for all its allure, the internet could also be a "dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets".

 

US economic security, national security and public safety were now all at risk from new kinds of enemies, including "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals".

 

Geordie Guy, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said governments around the world seemed terrified of some unidentified risk that they believe the internet poses.

 

"The proposal is from Joe Lieberman, a repeat offender on rights versus regulation, in a bill called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," he said.

 

"One wonders which nation Senator Lieberman considers the internet an asset of, and how proposing its destruction by presidential or homeland security order protects it.

 

"The internet is not a national asset of the United States, nor is it a media regulation problem of Australia. It is an international network used by millions upon millions of citizens and it needs to remain free and available."

 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy did not respond to calls requesting comment.

 

Google, one of the world's biggest internet companies, declined to comment as it was not yet official US government policy.

[/hide]

 

Do you think this is justified? I mean, I certainly wouldn't want cyber warriors to attack me, but since they want this to "protect" themselves, I think that should the US pass this bill, every country should have a similar switch - it's not fair that the US is the only country able to protect itself from cyber warriors.

 

Also, wouldn't it be funny if Obama said "Killswitch, engage!" when he pressed it? I think it would.

 

But honestly, who didn't see something like this coming? It's not like Obama's terribly different from any other president.

[Iconic]

I think this is terrible, the internet does not belong to one person or even one entity, I don't even see how they would do it; of course they may be able to say 'shutdown this server' but they certiantly can't do this globally over every site in the whole world, if this bill was proposed other countrys would surely work out a bypass or alternative to this american internet.

The internet is a service which should be acceseble to anyone with a computer and if Americans can claim that China's censoring is bad they can't surely agree with this killswitch.

 

In the new series of doctor who they have a global defence system known as the Osterhagen Project which would destroy the world by strategically placed nuclear warheads under the earths crust, however the difference is that all countries of the world must agree - this is exactly the same as the Osterhagen project apart from the fact that only one country has the power to destroy the internet.

[Sy_Accursed]

I think this is terrible, the internet does not belong to one person or even one entity, I don't even see how they would do it; of course they may be able to say 'shutdown this server' but they certiantly can't do this globally over every site in the whole world, if this bill was proposed other countrys would surely work out a bypass or alternative to this american internet.

The internet is a service which should be acceseble to anyone with a computer and if Americans can claim that China's censoring is bad they can't surely agree with this killswitch.

 

In the new series of doctor who they have a global defence system known as the Osterhagen Project which would destroy the world by strategically placed nuclear warheads under the earths crust, however the difference is that all countries of the world must agree - this is exactly the same as the Osterhagen project apart from the fact that only one country has the power to destroy the internet.

 

Lol since when is that the "new" series? That's part of last season finale.

 

But yeah on topic:

I have a feeling it may be press twisting of words cause there is no literal way this could work.

They could give legal power to shut down all US based web servers. but that would not be an instant thing.

They could also give legal powers to make all US telecom people shut down their net services, but nothing can shut down the entire internet.

[OldJoe]

So much for a free world.

In my country they are already *spying* on users via FRA. I know it's directed towards anti-terrorism, and they wouldn't ever have enough time to go thru what sites me or my neighbour are visiting, but it's still annoying as hell. And then you have the old media in this country which censors and chokes comments related to articles on their website. Every now and then they also condemn free-speech forums.

 

But this is on a whole other scale. I can't say much more other than that i'm pissed off.

Please don't pass this bill...

[Bier]

I dont get what it has to do with Obama, its just a proposal from some independent senator that probably wont pass. Its a stupid idea anyways, what would be the benefit from doing it?

[Ss_J9_Goten]

You're right, I just misread the first sentence.

 

The benefit would be to stop "cyber terrorists" from using the internet to "compromise security". I'm not really sure what that would entail, but that's the gist I get from it.

 

I have a feeling it may be press twisting of words cause there is no literal way this could work.

 

That's what I thought at first, but then I read this

 

"Unfortunately, too much of the core of the internet resides in the US - let's put it this way, they cannot shut down machines in Australia, but they can completely isolate us and shut down certain core functions like the DNS ... they can render the internet fairly useless for the rest of the world,"

 

so I guess it's not so much a literal killswitch as it is a "crippleswitch".

 

@OldJoe: I guess that's just the way of the world these days. Censorship seems to be happening everywhere cause of all this terrorist panic [cabbage].

[Racheya]

The problem with this is not just that it's completely stupid, but that a LOT of servers are based in the US. Even ones that are used primarily in other countries. For example, I don't think that the UK has many data centres, we don't have as much free land as the US does so we would have a lot of servers that serve the UK over in the US. The crippling of the internet would practically stop ALL internet activity because of the sheer number of data centres in the US.

 

The internet is a GLOBAL thing and the US has no right whatsoever to determine internet usage across the world. Governments are afraid of the internet because it's something that is largely out of their control. They don't understand it and believe that by putting controls and censorship on it they can control it. But it's the free nature of the internet that makes it what it is, and any sort of controls or censorship will simply be worked around. This goes for governments as well as tyrannical media companies trying to monopolise the internet for their own financial gain.

[Pirate_Felix]

Internet terrorism is srs bsns. Be aware dear mods because the terrorists might TAKE YOUR JOBS

 

Noway this is going to pass.

[Flodder450]

Hmm..should this pass, they are going to shoot themselves in the foot :shame:

[Lenticular_J]

This is why you contact your local senator or representative, kiddos. Pay attention to the [cabbage] they try and pass one day. If you actually understand C-SPAN, good. If not, there are people that find these things out.

[meb]

I stopped reading at "cyber-9/11". This is just too stupid for words.

[Iconic]

I stopped reading at "cyber-9/11". This is just too stupid for words.

What would cyber-9/11 even be? if the US government wants to keep all its files secret (probably because there all about rendition and torture) they just use intranet instead of the mainstream internet.

[Racheya]

This is why you contact your local senator or representative, kiddos. Pay attention to the [cabbage] they try and pass one day.

 

Eh. Reminds me of when the Digital Economy Bill was being pushed through the UK, practically the music industry's wet dream, with hardly any debate or scrutiny from MPs. There were a lot of protest online and even flash mobs IRL but it still got pushed through in the final days of the previous government.

 

I just really don't think the government understands the internet and how it works *coughtubescough*

[Myweponsg00d]

Just the next step forward of the United States taking over the world under the disguise of anti-terrorism. :thumbup:

[SeanyTheSailor]

I stopped reading at "cyber-9/11". This is just too stupid for words.

What would cyber-9/11 even be? if the US government wants to keep all its files secret (probably because there all about rendition and torture) they just use intranet instead of the mainstream internet.

Cyber 9/11

 

Early this morning Islamic fundamentalists gamers launched a huge assault on the internet. We have been receiving reports that there is no internet porn! It has all just up and disappeared! One man tells his horrifying story,"Well I was just sitting there jerking off like i do every morning when all of a sudden the internet just shut down. Since i was only half way done I turned it back on and tried to go to my favorite porn site. It was down so I went to my second favorite, which was also down, that's when i knew something was wrong." President Obama had this to say,"We cannot allow fear to overwhelm us. this was a devastating blow, but we can persevere. We still have magazines and video. We still have porn." After a standing ovation President Obama went on to say that, since the internet porn crisis may gone on for an unknown period of time, he is going to try to push through a bill which gives benefits to small businesses which sell pornographic paraphernalia. Now all this leaves is the question of why. Why would they take all of our internet porn away?

[TTanT]

^ :ohnoes:

 

 

OT: What a load of crud. Seriously?

"Cyber warriors?" It sounds like something out of MegaMan.

[tortilliachp]

so what it boils down to:

 

USA potentially passes killswitch bill (unlikely). All data centers that can move out of USA move out of USA. Others create international back-ups. Killswitch has little to no effect.

 

If the US can't stop the major file-sharing websites (god knows they've tried), their power over the internet does not allow them to do any of the scare-mongering suggestions this article proposes.

[Abc1230]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

 

'nuff said

[Giordano]

Instead of attacking the internet, why not make better defenses? :roll:

[Myweponsg00d]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people accept the government restrictions on newspapers, mail, TV, radio...etc..and then think that the internet should not be controlled by the government.

[Lenticular_J]

Cyber terrorism only means the government is scared of citizens' ability to communicate quickly, effectively, and secretly. If records and files were what "enemies" wanted, they could have them with ease. A simple Google search shows how [cabbage]ty the US' computer safety is.

 

Terrorism as a whole disgusts me. We're supposedly at war with terrorists. We're at war with ideals and terrorism is a method used. Terrorism is one of the most popular ways to fight a war of ideals - because idealists rarely have their ideal militaries. So they make do. Throughout history, terrorism has been used as a legitimate method. Targeting civilians was just part of the loot of war. It's just that there were real armies to back up said terrorism.

[fastortoise]

I think that the senator had just watched an episode of 24 where the woman president was raging hard because terrorists were controlling american planes through a device that acted over the internet and the president was yelling at everyone to turn the internet off.

 

:rolleyes:

[obfuscator]

I don't see how this could work. Even if the bill were passed he'd only have control over servers and ISP's in the states.

 

Dumb idea though.

[Maleficus1055]

Proposed by DROOPY DOG HIMSELF

[Ss_J9_Goten]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people accept the government restrictions on newspapers, mail, TV, radio...etc..and then think that the internet should not be controlled by the government.

 

I'd put that one down to people disliking the idea of one nation having power over a global resource.

 

@tortillachp: Yeah, data centres that can move out of the US probably will. What about those that can't? I admit I know nothing about how the internet works, but if "most of the core infrastructure" is in the US, and they have the power to shut it down, it seems like they really could affect other nations' access to the internet.

 

Supposing you are right though, it's a pointless run-around that ultimately just wastes a lot of time and money because the US government can't handle not having everything under their thumb.