Obama Internet Kill Switch (Updated 06/26/2010)

Edit: I changed the title. Used to be "New Bill would allow Obama to Shut Off the Internet" But I figured we could just keep all articles about this issue in the same place...

--
I'm not kidding.

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

Read More Here

Part of me wonders if this could even pass. Another part of me hopes and prays we don't turn into China. But what do the rest of you think about this? (Nate, if you're reading this, I would LOVE your law school-y opinion!)

This also kinda reminds me of the South Park episode where there wasn't any internet, and they had to go reset the giant modem... haha.

This also kinda reminds me of the South Park episode where there wasn't any internet, and they had to go reset the giant modem... haha.

YES.

I don't think it has a chance of passing. Or maybe that's wishful thinking. Still.

I don't think it has much chance either. I'm crossing my fingers. My dad was the one to inform me of it, and he's one of those "the world is going to hell because of Obama" people - which is OK, I still love him to death, so he thinks that this has a likelihood of passing because of the "bozos" in congress.

So he's all paranoid about it. Which I don't think is wrong, just... I dunno. Don't think it'd pass.

I've never liked Lieberman, and isn't this more than an American issue it's the world you can't shut off internet and expect whole world to do nothing. China doesn't even try this!

I really don't think this could past, even in this day and age.

Also, note that the source you're using is rather... um... biased and conspiracy-theorist at best. The reason why they're doing this is because some countries in particular can basically hack into our servers and have created havoc even within the high security military, so they pose a security risk. There is more to this bill than giving the president power. I wouldn't altogether be against having the internet be forced to shut down in a period of national security. I just am wary about one person controlling it.

The other side: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cf ... 39d301fb7f

The bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/text

Haha, my opinion?

First, I think people need to be careful about distinguishing between Obama and the office of the President. It's not Obama per se who would have these powers, it's the President. Obama will be gone by either 2013 or 2017, but the President will still have these powers. What I mean by that is that it's never the current guy I'm worried about getting these powers, it's the guy who's President in ten, twenty, thirty years. I'm sure Obama would actually never use these powers, but Obama won't be President forever. We keep giving more powers to the executive branch thinking the current guy seems reasonable enough while forgetting that the chance of that always being true is pretty slim. We've had Presidents before who were pretty dictatorial, but they were limited by the powers granted to them at the time.

Second, the big problem with this bill is that it's so ill-defined. Summing the bill up, the President has the power to shut down the Internet during a cyber-security emergency. But what exactly is a cyber-security emergency? Whatever it is, it needs to be very narrowly defined. Are we talking about terrorist attacks? Attacks from a nation-state? Or are we talking about an act of God, like a solar flare?

Third, another big problem is that it's so broad. Typically, bills giving the President authority during a national security crisis deal only with national security assets. But how is Google a national security asset? It's become vitally important to the economy, but Google doesn't strike me as necessary for the nation's defense.

Now, giving the President broad and ill-defined authority can be okay as long as there are no acceptable alternatives. But there seems to be plenty of acceptable alternatives here. For instance, if we are dealing with a terrorist or nation-state attack, why can't the President simply shut-down the parts of the tele-communications infrastructure that are vital to defense? Better yet, why can't we simply better protect those assets? After all, it seems that shutting down the network when we're under attack is a bad plan. It's like coming under fire in the battlefield and deciding to turn off your radios lest the enemy overhear a General ordering his men forward.

All in all, the only time I can really see a bill like this being justifiable is during a solar-flare storm, in which case it'd be necessary for the President to order the shut-down of all tele-communications. Otherwise, we're going to eventually end up sacrificing the freedom of speech upon the altar of national security.

If this happens... I'm moving to the UK.

LittlePetRock wrote:If this happens... I'm moving to the UK.

Yes, living in a country where every move of yours is photographed and chronicled is clearly superior

Despite whatever flaws the American system has, it's still by and large a very open and dynamic system. That's part of the reason why the big tech giants are almost all based in the United States even though our tele-communications infrastructure isn't nearly as well constructed as many other first-world nations.

Plus, I don't think this bill has even been introduced yet. What everyone is crowing about is a piece of draft legislation, and sometimes, the final draft barely resembles the first draft. Add to that, very few bills ever get passed. The fact Lieberman is sponsoring this bill makes it more likely that it'll get through a committee, but that doesn't mean it will ever have a vote on the floor. As a sidenote, I saw Vernon's comment about Lieberman, but what I don't think he realizes is that this bill has pretty broad bi-partisan support. This isn't a partisan issue, and I don't like it when people turn it into one or resort to ad hominem attacks.

If/when this bill reaches the floor, it'll have to pass a filibuster, which requires 60 votes. Some people hate that rule, but the reason it exists is to protect against the tyranny of the majority. This bill is a perfect example of why we have the filibuster rule.

Even if it did get through, we still have the Constitution and I can guarantee you it'd be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. With the way the current court is so avidly free-speech, I doubt this bill would stand up to scrutiny unless greatly narrowed.

So, just keep in mind that while the American system does have flaws and leads to some troubling things at times, it's still a pretty good system. We may not always have the best government, but we will always have the best system of government.

LittlePetRock wrote:If this happens... I'm moving to the UK.

Noooo. Didn't you hear? They're using satellites to track your car down and give you speeding tickets if you're going too fast. XD

of Montreal had it right... "Let's pretend we don't exist. Let's pretend we're in Antarctica."

I knew posting this here would give me a better view. My dad can be partisan, which is his choice, but makes it hard to get unbiased opinions from him.

Thanks for the links, Snoink, and thank you for your explanation Nate! The way my dad explained things, it's pretty much being signed as we speak. XD Buuut. Of course it has so much to go through. And I agree - our country has a darn good government, one way or another. Our systems are weird but they're meant to be that way!

I was only kidding...

But still, this is completely asinine. Blocking the internet? What a big joke.

Obama Internet Kill Switch Plan Approved by US Senate

So, headline is misleading. It was approved by a US Senate Committee, not the whole US Senate. Still. It's past committee.

I'd try to read the bill but I doubt I'm smart enough to understand it.

Nate wrote:

LittlePetRock wrote:If this happens... I'm moving to the UK.

Yes, living in a country where every move of yours is photographed and chronicled is clearly superior

Exaggeration much? It's not that bad. Plus, they're cutting down on the CCTV cameras now... they cost too much. If you're right though... Well, I need to be careful on the toilet then, don't I?

Skins wrote:

Nate wrote:

LittlePetRock wrote:If this happens... I'm moving to the UK.

Yes, living in a country where every move of yours is photographed and chronicled is clearly superior

Exaggeration much? It's not that bad. Plus, they're cutting down on the CCTV cameras now... they cost too much. If you're right though... Well, I need to be careful on the toilet then, don't I?

The CCTV is quite wide spread but the worse is in London and then it's only in certain areas badly, one of them is obvious Canary Wharf. I'm not saying I agree, and find people paranoia frightening but it's not as bad as you state Nate.

But then, I suppose should be clearer on why I don't like Lieberman, I know he's not really a Democrat he mostly sides with Republicans. Not anything wrong with the Right Wing, but it's weasles like that I despise, who hide behind farces.

Relax Skins (and Vernon). It's a joke.


In any case, this is reassuring:

The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.