6/19/2010

11 Responses to “Truth or Fiction? The Internet Kill Switch”

1. It’s not much stronger than most of his other “trust the government,” anti-privacy arguments.

   If it’s aimed at real, serious attacks, then why not add a provision requiring the actual owner of the private infrastructure to give permission before the President can take it over? If they’re really under attack, surely they will readily give permission… unless the government has proven to be less technologically capable than the company’s own experts.

   And if the situation is really dire and the company refuses to cooperate, impose a warrant requirement, or provide for a fast tracked civil procedure to allow for judicial oversight before the President can just by fiat take over privately owned infrastructure.

   PatHMV (c34b06) — 6/19/2010 @ 7:56 pm

   
   

2. How about if we return the Federal Government to its numerated, and limited powers, where it has to respect individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, and proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence?

   AD - RtR/OS! (4ae013) — 6/19/2010 @ 8:22 pm

   
   

3. AD – That’s just plain racist talk! Consider yourself denounced.

   /doing JD’s job.

   Have Blue (854a6e) — 6/19/2010 @ 8:24 pm

   
   

4. Does anyone really know how much disaster a “kill switch” would wreak on business. Thousands, if not millions, of people in business are connected to the Internet daily and doing business using what is called server-side software. To just stop business and industry using the “kill switch” would be like turning off EVERY phone in the country when there is a crisis. Radical leftists socialists like Obama are NUTS. They deserve to be flogged for being so stupid and criminal in their thoughts and ideas. Freedom in America means just that — freedom from IDIOTS like Barack Obama and his ilk.

   AdrianS (11c5c3) — 6/19/2010 @ 9:02 pm

   
   

5. If anyone actually bothered to READ Baker, he clearly states there is no “kill switch” for the internet, but that certain sensitive networks would be forced to adopt defensive measures against attacks. This isn’t the whole internet, it is those networks connecting to the internet which deal with key national security and financial data.

   The greater concern for internet freedom – exponentially greater – is the FCC asserting authority to regulate broadband service providers as “public utilities.”

   Adjoran (b94778) — 6/20/2010 @ 1:04 am

   
   

6. Trust ‘these’ Democrat DC Jack-holes/jackals with info flow?!?

   Cereal?!?

   Not I.

   ‘Liberal’ interpretation of said policy is where that devil dwells.

   tD

   tahDeetz (adf399) — 6/20/2010 @ 4:09 am

   
   

7. If it’s aimed at real, serious attacks, then why not add a provision requiring the actual owner of the private infrastructure to give permission before the President can take it over?
   Comment by PatHMV — 6/19/2010 @ 7:56 pm

   It would be silly to allow private citizens to put in a layer of red tape that had to be followed, this will only result in unavoidable delays. We all know that no government run program is to be delayed by red tape, especially that not of it’s own making.

   See Deepwater Horizion for more details.

   Do I really need a / ?

   NavyspyII (df615d) — 6/20/2010 @ 4:40 am

   
   

8. Stewart whatshisname is a collectivist moron.

   fgmorley (10aa8c) — 6/20/2010 @ 6:18 am

   
   

9. “…Baker, … clearly states there is no “kill switch” for the internet…”

   Yeah, and there are no “Death Panels” in ObamaCare!

   AD - RtR/OS! (71ba66) — 6/20/2010 @ 7:46 am

   
   

10. > It gives the President the power to order certain critical infrastructure owners to protect themselves in a coordinated way.

    What, like the coordinated way the Fed has handled the rather clearly critical oil spill response?

    THAT kind of coordination?

    This smells to me, with what I ack is not a lot of investigation, as an excuse to shut down access to the internet to limit knowledge the government may be afraid of you finding out at a critical time.

    If there was a period of legitimately justified armed insurrection going on, for example, it seems likely this could be used to prevent coordination of such activities. Or if there was an atrocity committed, it could be used to prevent widespread dissemination of that information.

    Remember, letting them (i.e., “The Fed”) get a foot in the door usually means they get the whole enchilada through the door sooner or later.

    “The only social order in which freedom of speech is secure is the one in which it is secure for everyone…
    and, as those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize, it is never the
    oppressed who determine the bounds of the censorship. Their power is limited to legitimizing the idea
    of censorship.”
    – Aryeh Neier –

    This kind of thing makes me nervous — it appears reasonable — AT THIS LEVEL.

    Once we have allowed them the possibility, however, it need no longer STAY reasonable.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d) — 6/20/2010 @ 11:16 am

    
    

11. This kind of thing makes me nervous — it appears reasonable — AT THIS LEVEL.

    Once we have allowed them the possibility, however, it need no longer STAY reasonable.

    P.S. remember when the RICO statutes were only supposed to be applied to “gangsters the law couldn’t otherwise touch”?

    And recall the FBI/JD giving local law enforcement agencies training materials in how to use the Patriot Act — purportedly aimed at terrorists — in local prosecutions and investigations…?

    My knee-jerk reaction, thus, is overwhelmingly against this kind of thing.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d) — 6/20/2010 @ 11:20 am