Does the internet belong to the US?

[tortilliachp]

 

@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.

 

exactly. the great-firewall of china solution is the only realistic type of block against internet terrorism (to a degree). the US could create and enforce such an expensive system, requiring thousands of employees without censorship, but limiting all internet access in the US that isn't connected directly to satellite in some form or other. obviously, they wouldn't want the censorship of the Chinese, but that's the only real technological way to "turn off " the internet or specific internet sites i know of. (cries of "censorship" and limiting free speech and your "rights" to come)

 

Thepiratebay had their hardware taken (such as this article seems to suggest would be the American killswitch solution), their site was completely up, and back-uped in 10 countries within 48 hours. How long would it take a company with a large turnover?

[Maze]

Someone's been watching too much Live Free or Die Hard.

[Will H]

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.

 

This.

 

The Internet, despite being vast, is also fluid enough to vacate countries like the US. It physically can't be controlled by any single entity. Not only will that effort be completely ineffective, they'll also cut off probably the most vital resource that US citizens have. Good fight.

[The Dark Lord]

[bleep] OBAMA!

 

Anyway, the USA will do what it can do because most countries won't do anything about it. When the other Western countries stand up for themselves, the United States' power will be knocked down a notch or two. Until then, the United States controls the world, and any US citizen who speaks out against it is unpatriotic. :roll:

 

Enjoy your hip-hop and crisy (and your Coca-Cola).

 

Oh, and this is one of the reasons why I'm moving out of the States eventually. My family has been here for centuries and even helped found the nation, and then the United States murders itself. I guess I'm not the only one that would agree that the US government needs to get revolted against.

[indy500fan]

[bleep] OBAMA!

 

[bleep] you for not even bothering to read the article or the rest of the posts here. This has nothing to do with Obama, it is just another of the stupid sensationalist headlines anti-Obama people are throwing around nowadays.

[Alg]

[bleep] OBAMA!

 

[bleep] you for not even bothering to read the article or the rest of the posts here. This has nothing to do with Obama, it is just another of the stupid sensationalist headlines anti-Obama people are throwing around nowadays.

And also a healthy dose of fearmongering.

This thing barely even touches on what the proposition actually is. Most of the article is statements from 'lobby groups' about how terrible it is/will be.

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually read posts before posting? Wait, nevermind, reading get in the way of a good moral outrage. I can't expect that to happen.

[Ss_J9_Goten]

I should probably edit that first post right about now.

[Atom Smash40]

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?

lol'd IRL

 

but seriously, this is stupid. no one OWNS the internet. you cant just shut down the world's greatest invention (in my mind). if anything, do what the cops who surf the net for kiddie porn sites do: hack them down. you dont need to shutdown the entire internet, just the websites that are obviously terrorist recruitment pages...

[Giordano]

Or Obama could just symbolize the government as a whole.

[magekillr]

Cyber terrorism is certainly a very real and potent threat, but once again Joe Lieberman, every Republican's favorite "independent," tries to solve this problem with stupid and dangerous means.

 

The President of the US already has too much power, most of which has been willfully given by the "checks and balances," and the neo-Cons just want to give that branch more. It's ridiculous.

 

An open and free internet is the one key that the proletariat has against the bourgeois corporate class, and it needs to stay that way; corporate control over the media has made cable news an absolute disaster and this is our only access to real and educating information. Tapping into our phone and email lines is a bad enough infringement on our civil liberties. That will be nothing compared to the removal of net neutrality.

 

Thankfully, Obama and the FCC have been fighting the good fight and trying to keep it that way--although he's been horrible on the civil liberties front and has continued to argue that the US has the right to detain people without charge--but AT&T and Comcast have been lining the pockets of our Senators trying to reverse that. Net neutrality needs to be codified into law, and no company/corporation NOR any COUNTRY should be able to attack it again. Is John McCain a co-sponsor? He's usually along for the ride with anything that Joe Lieberman presents, especially when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism.

[obfuscator]

Cyber terrorism is certainly a very real and potent threat, but once again Joe Lieberman, every Republican's favorite "independent," tries to solve this problem with stupid and dangerous means.

 

The President of the US already has too much power, most of which has been willfully given by the "checks and balances," and the neo-Cons just want to give him more. It's ridiculous.

 

An open and free internet is the one key that the proletariat has against the bourgeois corporate class, and it needs to stay that way; corporate control over the media has made cable news an absolute disaster and this is our only access to real and educating information. Tapping into our phone and email lines is a bad enough infringement on our civil liberties. That will be nothing compared to the removal of net neutrality.

 

Thankfully, Obama and the FCC have been fighting the good fight and trying to keep it that way--although he's been horrible on the civil liberties front and has continued to argue that the US has the right to detain people without charge--but AT&T and Comcast have been lining the pockets of our Senators trying to reverse that. Net neutrality needs to be codified into law, and no company/corporation NOR any COUNTRY should be able to attack it again. Is John McCain a co-sponsor? He's usually along for the ride with anything that Joe Lieberman presents, especially when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism.

I think something that even supersedes all this is the ridiculousness of the proposal, as it's something that is literally impossible to enforce to any effective degree.

 

No mention of McCain being on board though.

[i_love_burritos]

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

 

I'd just like to point out that the US is doing this anyway.

[i_love_burritos]

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

 

I'd just like to point out that the US is doing this anyway.

Not just doing it.

 

We're having sex with our roommate's girlfriend without a condom then skipping town and leaving the kid on his doorstep.

 

Took it a bit far there but ... okay. :|

[das1330]

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.

 

 

In fact the US would be able to shut down the internet. Because the internet was originally developed in the United States, the most basic backbones of it are located there. If those servers were shut down the entire internet would go offline as the information stored on them is not available elsewhere. That said, this bill is not terriblly important in that even if it passes the chance of a total internet shutdown is practically nonexistent, and if a shutdown did occur the situation precipitating the decision would likely be so severe that the action would be justified. Everyone - including the US government - is well aware of how important it is to the world. It goes without saying such a decision would not be taken lightly.

 

 

 

has continued to argue that the US has the right to detain people without charge

 

For the past 225 years the United Sates constitution has guaranteed the right of anyone arrested to be formally charged with a crime - it has always been that way, and for the foreseeable future will always be that way. Once you are arrested the police have 24 hours to charge you, and despite any conspiracy theories you may have heard to the contrary there has never been any serious attempt to change this basic right.

[magekillr]

has continued to argue that the US has the right to detain people without charge

 

For the past 225 years the United Sates constitution has guaranteed the right of anyone arrested to be formally charged with a crime - it has always been that way, and for the foreseeable future will always be that way. Once you are arrested the police have 24 hours to charge you, and despite any conspiracy theories you may have heard to the contrary there has never been any serious attempt to change this basic right.

 

Oh hai:

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/38335/obama-bungles-bagram

 

U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates’ April 2 ruling that three detainees — two from Yemen, one from Tunisia, all held by the U.S. military at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan without charge for more than six years — have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts was crafted narrowly on purpose. The Obama administration did not have to appeal it and open itself up to the charge that it was making the same arguments that the Bush administration did — that prisoners in the war on terror can be held indefinitely with no constitutional rights whatsoever.

 

Yet on Friday, the Obama Justice Department did just that, filing documents with the federal court indicating that it plans to appeal the judge’s ruling, because allowing these three men to challenge their detention would “impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.”

 

Bagram is “in a theater of war where the Nation’s troops are in harm’s way,” wrote Justice Department lawyers, and responding to a possible deluge of future petitions from prisoners at Bagram “would divert the military’s attention and resources at a critical time for operations in Afghanistan, potentially requiring accommodation and protection of counsel and onerous discovery.” This would cause “significant and irreparable burdens” that would risk “injury to the public interest.”

 

In other words, it would be really inconvenient right now for the U.S. military to have to defend holding prisoners for years without charge or trial, and it has more important things to do, like fight a war on terror.

 

Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar? Isn’t that the same argument the Bush administration used when it said that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didn’t have habeas rights? And wasn’t it President Obama who said that he rejects “a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus?” So where did that guy go?

 

It's not some conspiracy theory, Snipersas. I know how much of a right-wing hack that you are, and how much you love authority (except when it comes to guns, amirite?), but please, spare me the inanity. The US charging and detaining people without charge for years at a time has been why there was so much outcry against Guantanamo. Are you going to argue that we didn't torture, too?

 

Not to mention that Joe Lieberman also introduced legislation that takes this even further, with his good 'ol buddy John McCain:

 

A bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman -- a bill that could well pass in the spineless, simpering Congress we have -- would encode into law President Bush's assertion that he could arrest and imprison even American citizens in a military prison indefinitely without charges or any kind of trial. Read the bill here (PDF). Then read Marc Armbinder's comments about it.

 

Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity.

And he's right. Here's the key fact:

 

According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.

(There is no distinction between U.S. persons--visa holders or citizens--and non-U.S. persons.)

 

Remember, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene that even foreign nationals cannot be held forever without some sort of hearing with adequate due process to determine whether the detention is justified. It ruled even more clearly in the case of Jose Padilla that the president certainly does not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus for individual citizens and hold them indefinitely.

 

It's difficult to even imagine something more blatantly unconstitutional. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments all set out the forms of due process required of anyone detained by the government, especially citizens.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/04/mccainlieberman_bill_destroys.php

[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.

 

 

In fact the US would be able to shut down the internet. Because the internet was originally developed in the United States, the most basic backbones of it are located there. If those servers were shut down the entire internet would go offline as the information stored on them is not available elsewhere. That said, this bill is not terriblly important in that even if it passes the chance of a total internet shutdown is practically nonexistent, and if a shutdown did occur the situation precipitating the decision would likely be so severe that the action would be justified. Everyone - including the US government - is well aware of how important it is to the world. It goes without saying such a decision would not be taken lightly.

 

 

Ah I assume you're referring to ICANN owning / running the root zone file dns system and Ip system? There are alternative DNS roots that exist today. these could be expanded and utilized in a matter of hours if not minutes. these are completely independent of the DNS system, obviously the american military uses every opportunity for calling these alternate systems "dangerous".

 

 

I'll remind you of some of the most basic, and important characteristics of the internet: The internet is a network of networks. Each network sets its own technological standards and coding standards. IP's are allocated from outside the US by local bodies "delegated" this responsibility. without external control (i.e. killswitching) these local bodies still hold address-giving power.

 

 

Let's do a little thought experiment here:

 

No group, company or anything can tamper with my wired network at home. No-one can block the interaction of my wireless network to my neighbors wireless network and my wired network. These networks are not the world wide web, they make up a closed network. I can, without the interaction of the internet in any way, assign ip's to computers on my closed network. I can host webpages on other ip's, for all to see. My closed network is a mini internet, not affiliated with the internet in any way, right?

 

My local network is not affiliated with any american company. The american government cannot tamper with my network. I can connect my network to other similar networks. In fact, my ISP has a HUGE network that can run without an external signal. Actually, my ISP can identify my computer without any external signal. Actually, my ISP assigns my network its ip's without the interference of anyone external. Actually my ISP is also connected to all other ISP's in my country, and my neighboring country directly, without the affiliation of an external body. Come to think of it, my ISP, in affiliation with all the aforementioned groups run a "micro-interent"

 

These micro-internets come together to form the whole internet, and the U.S can only shut down networks that are based in the US, and content that is stored in the US. Alternate DNS systems, or simply sticking to your old ip means everything works fine without any american / external input. The internet still runs.

 

 

still not convinced?

[Tim]

Its Metal Gear Solid: The Patriots all over again....

[obfuscator]

The main leverage behind this bill is that the US does have a large amount of control over DNS, without which the internet is basically useless.

 

This kill switch would be effective for a very short time only, once companies started to move their servers elsewhere it would be ineffective.

[Zimbu]

I think I know what their plan is.

 

1. Shut down Internet

2. Give free porn to new military recruits

3. Have over nine million (that's over 9000 thousand) military personnel when database server and domain name issues are resolved

4. ???

5. Profit

[The Observer]

This won't really solve anything. Groups that are "terrorists" against the US (or at least currently) are usually in countries where Internet is not much of a primary concern.

[indy500fan]

Yeah there is no way to shut off the Internet world wide. Even shutting it off nationwide, after passing this bill and adding a "killswitch", would be extremely difficult.

[Alg]

So really, even if this passes it'll be nearly impossible to actually implement?

[Giordano]

So really, even if this passes it'll be nearly impossible to actually implement?

Correct. Everything would just go through Canada or something.

[indy500fan]

So really, even if this passes it'll be nearly impossible to actually implement?

 

There's a lot they could [bleep] up in the US, and a large part of the Internet is in the US, and therefore a large part of the Internet could be [bleep]ed up (large not meaning majority, just a large part) but there is no way the US government could shut down the Internet around the world. Many American sites like Yahoo!, Google, amazon, MSN ect... all have servers internationally and everyone outside the US could access them just fine, just like any other site that is hosted outside the US (even if it started here).

[sees_all1]

Didn't read the bill, but it could lead to censorship. President doesn't like the *nasty* rumors on the internet going on about him, turns on the kill switch because of some terrific threat from abroad (made up, by the way).