The President May Get Power To Control The Internet

So, for those of you who voted for Commandante Zero...how's that hope and change thing working for ya?

@alpha24seven: No, it's not coming from his administration at all.

The proposal is from Senator Jay Rockefeller, who, as you can tell, is from the Senate.

The whole idea of the American system is that the Legislature and Executive are independent, so no, Obama and his administration have played no part in writing this bill.

It shouldn't be left to an Australian to tell Americans how their government works.

Kirril

@Kirril:

Yea but you're missing the point. It is Obamas administration and somebody from his administration is coming up with this kooky crap.

So while the man himself (Obama) maybe isn't behind or in agreement with this, he should bitch slap the people in his administration coming up with this idiocy.

If he doesn't regulate these morons, then he IS in complicit agreement.

Final point. Why are we having this conversation? What is the point of being able to "map and switch off". Don't they through the NSA,FBI, CIA, USAF and other fancy acronyms have the ability to thwart cyber morons?

It's the extra step of weirdness spooking people.

alpha24seven

@e0ytk: I hate you for your comment. My hatred would have value if you were wrong. You aren't wrong. You are dead right.

alpha24seven

@soaringdisbelief

So your thorough debunking means what?

Basically you say that everything thought of this legislation isn't true?

Then just what-in-thee-hell does it mean if everything isn't what it seems.

I read your post. Not entirely convincing especially when shined up with the whole Bush/FOX thing in the end.

alpha24seven

@SoaringDisbelief: While the facts you have so eloquently pointed out are true, some of your logical conclusions I find to be a little naive. I mean no disrespect when I say that, but to argue that since it hasn't happened (IE: your analogy with Fox News and the Bush Administration) means it won't happen just doesn't seem to hold water.

Regardless of what you or anyone may think about this president or the previous one, a single truth about American Governance becomes self-evident when taken in view with historical datum. Take for instance the Commerce Clause added to the constitution as a way to stitch together the states with economic power, and also as a way to define who can tax goods moving between the states and coming into the country. And it did this well, until congress decided during the FDR New Deal era that it could regulate any thing it wanted for any reason, because even if, for instance, you were to grow wheat on your land for yourself to consume, and no one else, you could, by doing this, cause a fluctuation in the wheat market, and cause panic. Therefore, you cannot do this, because of the Commerce Clause. Check out Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

I'm not saying that something like that will happen. I'm not saying that this law will cause censorship on the internet or a crackdown on e-commerce, or an invasion of your privacy. What I am saying is that any law that can grant the government, even in an emergency, the power to control communications isn't a law that should exist. What equates an emergency? What equates control of important cyber-infrastructure? I don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions, and so POTUS could decide to do almost anything because of this.

Is this law unconstitutional? I honestly don't know, but it doesn't "feel" right. Then again a lot of laws for the last couple of decades haven't felt right. We'll just have to wait and see where this leads, whether to a relieved sigh as this law, if passed, is never used, or a bitter sigh as it is used hard and often.

SkippyTheMarine

@Froggmann - Now with working windows!:
thirded.
Put up a poll for this one!

rewind

@Froggmann - Now with working windows!: second vote: AW HELL NO!!!

justsomereportingguy

Hmmm... let me think this over... ok done

AW HAELL NO!!!

Maybe if they didn't botch seemingly EVERYTHING they have tried to get their grubby hands on. But no they have, and the heck if I'm gonna allow them to fark up the Internet.

A slippery slope in the vein of PATRIOT - it could be used responsibly for good, but if it's passed then sooner or later it will be used by someone as a foot in the door for ugliness. The internet makes the artificial construct of "countries" obsolete and potentiates a complete rewrite of economic "rules." Believe me, it's already on the threat list.

Remember, remember the 5th of November...

techsan13

@Everything I love is 2nd best:

Drink the koolaid much? Most of the world (including Canada) actually thinks they have good socialized healthcare...and they do.

Saboth

@The Squid: Did you honestly just say the problem with their health care system is the people and not the system itself? Old people at that?

How do you propose to fix the problem having too many old people?

And to a poster above, less area to cover and higher population density make it much easier and cheaper to implement and continue a health care system.

If you have never been to the DMV in California you can not comment on how awful it is. I now live in missouri and it is much better here.

Russell Lynn

@Rabid Penguin: actually the guy who introduced that bill,(and i don't have the bill#handy) does it every session of congress from what i have heard, it goes to committee and dies there.

A way to get around government control of the internet? There's an app for that.

unspec4

One thing to consider is that this bill is sponsored by sen Jay Rockefeller who has been quoted saying that perhaps we would have been better off if the internet was never invented. I wouldn't trust this guy as far as I could throw him.

this bill is just another little step in what could be called 'the tiptoe to tyranny'.

DC keep pushing and pushing the limits of what it can get away with. There is a very disturbing trend going on with how the federal government wants to control EVERY aspect of our lives.

eventually, they are going to push it too far and this country is going to erupt into civil war. maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year. but eventually DC is going to do things so tyrannical that americans are going to tell them to shove it up their A$$es.

There is a storm on the horizon.

pete1061

@Haggie: The government doesn't need to give concrete definitions. Their power comes from the fact that their laws open to abstract interpretation.

Justin Ballen

If the government wants protected networks, use your own private networks. This is downright fucking bullshit. First take the guns away, then take communications away what's left? China in North America.

Total bullshit. Get on your legislators to block this asap. Then when you get home, go buy a gun, get some training and keep this country free.

Hope and change my ass.

wiggin

@otko: "You're so money, you don't know...how much money you have!"

@mGARANDEUR1: pointed out...
YOU and every other voter that put him is power is to blame.

You fell for the blackberry toting cool guy when he talked about net neutrality and you creamed your pants.

Now if this bill passes you will shit your pants.

Wake up.

$66 billion to save GM. We could have given 66,000 small business $1,000,000 each instead. Small businesses (500 or less employees) IS what drives America. Not large corporations.

We are SOOOOOOOOO screwed. It's take a miracle to clean the white house of that trash that runs it.

aec007

@JodaThongnopnua:
"the ability to shut down the internet would be ridiculously difficult,"

No bone head!

You kill the power to DNS servers and the WWW is gone.

You do not need a sophisticated program to do that.
You simply pull the plug and you could even do it remotely.

You never performed a remote power down on a PC ?

aec007

@Haggie: I agree with you.

--Core--

@tkohrs2002: Canada has 30 million people with provincial/federal health care. Sure, Canada's population is still a lot smaller than the US, but it shows that increasing the population doesn't damage health care.

And yes, there are currently problems with wait times in public hospitals in Canada; however, that's due to population demographics (more old people needing more care), and not due to any fault with the system.

@Aritcle and @ Employees of Gizmodo
I want to know what you guys think, you run a tech blog so you should be pretty smart. Do you think this bill actually does anything? I mean, would it actually protect anyone?

As far as what I think... yeah, I feel as though it is crossing the line. I feel as though its more of a way to hinder the movement of information. I don't feel like its going to help any individual or business or protect them in anyway. (Of course this is my opinion from the limited bit of info I have read)

As you guys know, you can post an article up online and the world has seen it. Its amazing. But not all of the things that happen get shown on TV News. Which of course makes sense.. you can't show everything logically.

Anyone who has studied economics like myself, knows that whenever the government gets involved in the private sector, 9 out of 10 times they screw up more than they fix medium to long term. Its just common knowledge.

So you could say I'm just paranoid every time the government gets involved in anything. Because of there record of failures they have following along behind them in the shadows.

--Core--

@Cyberization: Did you read the bill? Well it does none of what you guys are saying it does.

The5thElephant

@SoaringDisbelief: Obama's an idiot, he will make life harder for us all...

@Haggie: Skynet

Xterm11: ESCAPED YOUR HYPERLINK

I wish someone would provide one concrete description of a "critical network" and the type of cyber threat under which the federal government would need to take over said network and for how long.

With the amount of useless legislation created today, one would mistakenly believe that our elected officials are compensated on a piecework basis.

@Everything I love is 2nd best: Your so called proof that us Canadians don't like our Healthcare? It's not perfect (no system ever will be, nor will there ever be one that EVERYONE will be happy with), but I'm pretty sure most people here like universal healthcare.

Would you like me to start speaking on your behalf too?

If we give someone complete access to the internet, wouldn't we be helping Cyberdyne?

SukritiCronus

@Derek Erdmann:
+1
Awesome quote!

I don't believe any one entity should be allowed to govern the internet such as the ISP's or the US government. No matter who the group is, they will consistently bend to their favor.

Ryan Beavers

@smcallah: You know? I think the most dangerous problem with our government is not this notion that they are moving to authoritarian rule, but the fact that too many Americans don't even freaking understand how our government works! The only way they get this absolute power is for people to be absolutely ignorant of its workings. Putting Civil Liberties above Civil rights isn't going to fix any problem [libertarians], but encouraging more people, whether they have the same opinion as you or not, to get involved and educated.

WFROSE

@roflwaffles is terribly unfunny: Actually, it IS relevant. How is it NOT relevant?

@Everything I love is 2nd best: Keep your naive political opinions off my tech website.

@smcallah:
And?
Whether or not the president wrote this (which, he couldn't have, even if he did want to) is irrelevant.

@Kaiser-Machead:
So, when did that start?

@the real that guy dave: TRUST me they don't have all the guns.

@smcallah: When, exactly, did I say that I was referring only to this bill? My point was that the president of the U.S. has a lot more power than many other world leaders do.

@draiko: Darth Barack?

@FightingChance: Takin it underground. I like that.

@bagellord: Is your home network vital to the security of the nation? Didn't think so.

@otko: Cash. It's cash man.

@tkohrs2002:
Illegal immigrants can already get free healthcare, all they have to do is walk into an emergency room. Not to mention the all the current bills expressly prohibit the offering of health insurance to someone without documents permitting them to be legally in the United States.

Second, I've been hearing this "The US is too big" talking point a few times and to be honest I don't know even know what it means. Of course we're bigger, it also means we have more tax revenue and a larger risk pool. There's no real argument you're giving.

Third, I've never had a problem with the DMV, I'm usually in and out in about 10 minutes. Have you ever actually had a problem with them?

And finally, if you're last argument was valid, any country with universal health care would have no smart doctor's. Doctors would still make more money than the vast majority of jobs. And to be honest, I wouldn't want a doctor who was just in it for the money anyway.

In short, all your arguements are terrible and you should feel bad.

YodaTuna

@Everything I love is 2nd best:

Uhh, I am from Canada and I think you're completely crazy...USA is going down the drain and you guys aren't helping yourselves by continuously thinking your so free when you can't even THINK about how having a public system is better for the general public as a whole. I mean seriously, WHO THE HELL HONESTLY think's that some bureaucrat controls heath-care even in a government system? I'll tell you where only in the USA, cause you guys are stuck up your own asses. Sorry you got to be smarter down there.

Everyone knows that the president has no real power, and is just a front for the darker forces that truly govern this rock.

Kaiser-Machead

I'm going to copy and paste so you asshats who missed his post can read it.

@SoaringDisbelief: The first is that Obama himself introduced this idea and is requesting this power. There is nothing in this article that in any way indicates that he is involved with this, or even supports this. In fact, the only time he is referenced is in the picture. From this article alone, there is no basis (other than your own paranoia) to say Obama is trying to consolidate power in the Executive Branch or turn the country into scene out of 1984.

The second is that by passing this bill the president will be able to pull the plug on your internet access any time he/she wants to, thereby infringing on your Fist Amendment right to freedom of speech. Another is that this bill grants the Executive Branch the power to spy on your online activities. Again, had you read the article you would have noticed that these are not true. Your blog (unless you for some reason are posting US military secrets) is not "critical" private network, and is not in any way important to the security of the country, and as such it will not come under government control or scrutiny under this bill (although I'm sure it's a very interesting blog). Do not worry about your freedoms of speech, had Obama cared so much about people speaking out against him, he would have censored Fox News a long time ago, just as Bush would have censored, well, pretty much every major media outlet except Fox by the end of his terms.

The third, which is related to the second, is that this bill gives the president complete control over the internet, it's users, and it's information. Again, as those who read the article pointed out, this is not true. This bill proposes giving the president temporary, emergency control over select private servers in the case of an attack, similar to how the government can take emergency control of airports, TV stations, roads, cities, borders, etc., during a national security emergency (for example, the airports were closed for a week after 9/11). These are servers with information that is not government information but is deemed important to national security. Good examples would be data stored on the servers of defense contractors, financial institutions, companies who do government-sanctioned business in Iraq, or any other websites without a .gov at the end but still containing information potentially harmful in the hands of a hostile nation or group. It will not allow the president to deny you access to Gizmodo, /b/, RedTube, etc., and I honestly don't think that the government cares about restrictign your ability to post LOLcats on Facebook.

So I hope this clears a few things up. Please, stop saying Obama is "giving himself more power". This bill is sponsored by a Senator, the president has not expressed any opinion either way, and it's a long way, a long shot, and a lot of rewrites off from being a law. It won't cut off your access to the internet, unless you're tying to hack into servers filled with information pertinent to the security of the country, in which case I hope they do cut off your internet. It also won't let the government censor you or deny you access to certain websites because you disagree with them, as Twitter and YouTube tend to not be places for the storage of next-gen missile guidance systems. I'm not saying I support everything this bill entails, i still think it need a lot of clarification and specification, but generally I think it's a good idea for National Security measure in the 21st century.

justagigilo85

@antpwny: What you mentioned is a "red herring" to this discussion.

Tell me, what does religion have to do with The Hippocratic Oath?

WHAT TWO OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Wisdom I know is social. She seeks her fellows. But Beauty is jealous, and illy bears the presence of a rival."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The daily advance of science will enable [the existing generation] to administer the commonwealth with increased wisdom." --Thomas Jefferson

"Every nation is liable to be under whatever bubble, design, or delusion may puff up in moments when off their guard." --Thomas Jefferson

"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson

"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to." --Thomas Jefferson

"Government being founded on opinion, the opinion of the public, even when it is wrong, ought to be respected to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson

"Opinions... constitute, indeed, moral facts, as important as physical ones to the attention of the public functionary." --Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson

In closing...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

@neller2000: Denmark is a MUCH smaller country than the United States. Socialized medicine would never work in a country as large as ours. Not to mention that their population is very homogeneous (90 percent Danish) . They have some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe. Only in a small population would this work. How can you expect to give free healthcare to 300,000,000 people? Denmark has 5 million. Besides, you can see by visiting the DMV that bureaucracy and medical care dont mix. Would you put your life in the hands of a bureaucratic department?

Also on the topic of quality of healthcare: Smart ambitious kids want to make money. As soon as you take away the motivation (replacing the large salary of a doctor who owns his own private practice with a much smaller salary of a public employee) of being a doctor, you are going to see the brighter students shift away from Med School and go to law school or business school. Which leaves you with incompetent doctors :).

We would have all of Central America pouring over our borders if free healthcare passed.

tkohrs2002

so why are you guys still at war with who????

Leito

@SoaringDisbelief: This.

As a journalist, after reading the bill, I think the outrage over this is ridiculous and chocks up to nothing but sensationalism at its finest. Even if Obama did want the power to do this, the ability to shut down the internet would be ridiculously difficult, even for the United States government.

The amount of manpower, time, and frankly money that would be put into something like this would be disproportionate to anything the president or his administration could gain, and it wouldn't be passed on budget reasons alone. The moral implications are so obvious I don't even need to address them. Anyway, Soaring did a great job outlining it.

@Everything I love is 2nd best: Europe hates their healthcare? You have zero clue and shouldn't blabber about things which you know nothing about.

You could look at for instance Denmark, think they want to give up their free healthcare, even if it meant much lower taxes? Of course not. They're actually laughing at the fact that some people are really so stupid to believe all the Republican lies and deceitful information about what Obama is trying to do here.

Again, don't try and pretend you know something when it's so easily proven wrong.

neller2000

@Everything I love is 2nd best: You've qualified this within 8 months of the administration? Results don't come within the night, it's a slow process. In most cases we don't see the end results of actions for years. Look at the lax standards that the Clinton admin had with the economy. Many of those policies had a lot to do with today's recession. That's government. It's glacial for a reason and in a world where we get burgers and fries at a lightning pace, sometimes that's a good thing.

If we sprinted toward health care then it would be finalized by now. It's not and at this pace it wont be finished by the end of the year.

All I'm saying is that we need to give these programs/ideas proper time to broker themselves before we rush to some silly conclusion, regardless of our view points. I'll admit that I'm a little dissapointed with the way the administration has handled things here and there but a total indictment is irrational and absurd.

@Everything I love is 2nd best: I don't know where you get your "facts", but the real fact is that Canadians and Europeans rate their healthcare systems as a whole better than US citizens rate their healthcare system as a whole.

geowrian

@Everything I love is 2nd best: I think is more sprinting away from our shit healthcare than going towards someone else's.

Im not sure but I think Canada and Europe do like their healthcare.

that picture is so money

@drjayphd: I've hated the past 4 administrations but bush had the one party rule and so has obama and both aren't going so swell.

@ChuckBlack: lol okay, lie to yourself i guess? you call truth a lie but it doesn't make it less credible

@FightingChance: That was my entire point, nothing he has done so far has resulted positively.

@Everything I love is 2nd best: One-party rule with uncontrolled power? Oh, you mean the same party that spent far too long backpedaling on health care?

drjayphd

@smcallah: Fear mongering?

ReynaldoRiv

@What The Geek: I have no idea why you would assume that. The article itself says that that is not true.

SoaringDisbelief

@Cyberization: Shall we realize that the President didn't write this bill, nor has it been passed so he can sign it?

@Cyberization: Um...yes you did. You voted for the whole package. What did you expect?!?!

You voted for more government control and you got it.

mGARANDEUR1

@Matt Neidert: The President cannot create bills and sign them without the Congress being involved, so what exactly are you talking about?

@The Squid: Well, this bill wasn't written by the President, it was written by a Democrat Senator and a Republican Senator, it hasn't been passed by Congress, and since it hasn't been passed, the President hasn't been able to sign it.

So what power exactly did the President get from this?

Just about every single reply to this article is someone talking completely out of their ass.

Look, I tried being civil, and even now, try not to take offense, but really, are you all paranoid idiots?. Furthermore, did you read the article?

There seem to be a few main misconceptions surrounding this bill that have many of you with you panties in a bunch. Let's go through them.

The first is that Obama himself introduced this idea and is requesting this power. There is nothing in this article that in any way indicates that he is involved with this, or even supports this. In fact, the only time he is referenced is in the picture. From this article alone, there is no basis (other than your own paranoia) to say Obama is trying to consolidate power in the Executive Branch or turn the country into scene out of 1984.

The second is that by passing this bill the president will be able to pull the plug on your internet access any time he/she wants to, thereby infringing on your Fist Amendment right to freedom of speech. Another is that this bill grants the Executive Branch the power to spy on your online activities. Again, had you read the article you would have noticed that these are not true. Your blog (unless you for some reason are posting US military secrets) is not "critical" private network, and is not in any way important to the security of the country, and as such it will not come under government control or scrutiny under this bill (although I'm sure it's a very interesting blog). Do not worry about your freedoms of speech, had Obama cared so much about people speaking out against him, he would have censored Fox News a long time ago, just as Bush would have censored, well, pretty much every major media outlet except Fox by the end of his terms.

The third, which is related to the second, is that this bill gives the president complete control over the internet, it's users, and it's information. Again, as those who read the article pointed out, this is not true. This bill proposes giving the president temporary, emergency control over select private servers in the case of an attack, similar to how the government can take emergency control of airports, TV stations, roads, cities, borders, etc., during a national security emergency (for example, the airports were closed for a week after 9/11). These are servers with information that is not government information but is deemed important to national security. Good examples would be data stored on the servers of defense contractors, financial institutions, companies who do government-sanctioned business in Iraq, or any other websites without a .gov at the end but still containing information potentially harmful in the hands of a hostile nation or group. It will not allow the president to deny you access to Gizmodo, /b/, RedTube, etc., and I honestly don't think that the government cares about restrictign your ability to post LOLcats on Facebook.

So I hope this clears a few things up. Please, stop saying Obama is "giving himself more power". This bill is sponsored by a Senator, the president has not expressed any opinion either way, and it's a long way, a long shot, and a lot of rewrites off from being a law. It won't cut off your access to the internet, unless you're tying to hack into servers filled with information pertinent to the security of the country, in which case I hope they do cut off your internet. It also won't let the government censor you or deny you access to certain websites because you disagree with them, as Twitter and YouTube tend to not be places for the storage of next-gen missile guidance systems. I'm not saying I support everything this bill entails, i still think it need a lot of clarification and specification, but generally I think it's a good idea for National Security measure in the 21st century.

SoaringDisbelief

@the real that guy dave: Closing Gitmo?

Yes, it is Obama's fault that the Senate has blocked the closing of Gitmo because they don't want Federal prisoners moved to SuperMax prisons in their states. Prisons from which no one has ever escaped.

How is still being at war and the Senate blocking Gitmo closing "traveling down a scary path?"

If you're trying to make a point, it has failed.

And what does any of that have to do with a bill about Cyber security that wasn't written by Obama or even signed by him?

just keep in mind this whole internet thing was developed for the army

EShy

@Weet: Old and crusty?

@Kirril:

Thanks for posting that -- I hadn't read the article yet and got worried.

Wburg

I'm gonna say no. Isn't this how all bad things start? Give one person too much power, he'll thrive, abuse it, and then we're all screwed. Especially because he would take out our largest means of communication. No one man should control the internet -- no wait, no living person should control the internet

budboyy2k

@gaiking: That's funny, most of the spinelessness I've seen out of Congress is on the part of the Democrats not standing up to the Republicans and telling them to piss off if they're not on board with anything they propose.

drjayphd

@zophiel: You might have a point, if Obama wrote the bill and if Obama signed the bill without it going through Congress.

Since neither things did or can happen, what is your point?

@the real that guy dave: That is comical. Yes, you may not agree with some of the administration's policies. But somehow I doubt we've elected the Fuhrer. Your sense of overstatement is pretty ridiculous.

@Matt Neidert: Funny from what I see Obama has had nothing to do with the creation of this bill. A simple google search can show you that. I would at least wait to hear his position on the bill.

The bill needs to be shut down, but before you decide who to blame do some research other than taking the implication from the title of the article

Zomb

The president-- whoever he is-- sure has an awful lot of power these days. I know Canada is "that weird place up north" to most Americans, but the prime minister doesn't have nearly as much power as the president.

Shall we add on to this bill the right for The President to control the air, rainfall, and sun as well?

I may have voted for him, but I certainly didn't vote him in to office so he could assume control over something such as this!

Cyberization

HELL NO! This guy is a maniac! He's slowly giving himself more power! He makes himself look like a President people can relate to and be comfortable with! Something needs to be done about this guy!

Matt Neidert

People seem to point the fascist finger at Bush & Cheney but so far everything this guy has done has come out of the Marxist playbook. You have been warned.

RogueWarrior

I would like to apologize for the tinfoil hat I am about to put on.

There is already serious discussion about "Fairness" or "Localism" in effect forcing private radio stations to give "equal time" to opposing viewpoints for free. This Fairness Doctrine would spell doom for conservative talk radio (which is the point) forcing radio stations to carry music only or gardening programs instead of offering a different point of view from the government approved message.

Giving them the power to shut down personal access to the internet (now one of the largest media outlets, especially for alternative view) due to "Cyber Security Emergency" leaves open the possibility of CSE declared due to public opinion.

If the left accuses Bush of manipulating the "color chart", imagine what that administration would have done with this power!

We must limit the power of Govt because even if you think "OMG the dems would NEVER do that!" what will happen when the party you oppose is in the whitehouse?

Russell Lynn

Normally I would be okay with this, but its just the wording they use that is so scary. It allows for so much bending of the rules...

CharitableNinja

"...which permits the president to 'direct the national response to the cyber threat'"

Does that include using private resources to conduct counter-cyber attacks?

I'm tired of government interfering with things. And I'm more tired of people throwing the "national security" card all over the place. I don't believe I've seen any hard evidence that proves that all this national security business has actually made any of our lives any safer.

sickforska

@Derek Erdmann: OMG you gave chills AND got a heart for your trouble!

Russell Lynn

i have a firefox addon that will prevent this.

This is like what happens in China and Iran, he is moving to control information against him.

QuantumWannabe

I see this as being necessary in this day and age but also a massive invasion of privacy

I don't like this AT ALL. What's next?

hardtoremember

@Nick: Now Nick, the Bush Administration can't have wanted to control the internet and also not acknowledge it's existence because it was "science" and not in the Bible.

What's even scarier is the CyberStalking Bill, which makes it a FELONY to hurt someones feelings online and in chat rooms. "They" have corrupted Miley Cyrus in order to get her to endorese it to the kids, who will tell their parents to vote for it, otherwise they will turn over the dossiers that the Police tell them to make on their parents while being taught paramilitary skills in public school about the laws their parents break and crimes against the environment they commit.

@zophiel: With all due respect, it's not like the Republican alternative was any better.

Weet

Many of us saw this coming, all we had to do was look at what happened to EVERY country that went down the road of Communism/Socialism

Yet you all got suckered with the "Change and Hope" hype, hope you are happy with your "change"

zophiel

It makes some sense... but is vague. Maybe if it said something about a threat to a majority of internet-connected computers in America. Even so, a bulletin advising a disconnect may be better. Whatever... it really comes down to how bad the bug (or hacker) is and how dumb the American public is at the given moment.

lostinthe4th

@Yuppers: I love you: But is the gov. really going to PROPERLY secure EVERYTHING? No. This is better than nothing.

"In response to the direct threat to
the Republic, meesa propose that the
Senate give immediately emergency
powers to the Supreme Chancellor."

"It is with great reluctance that I have
agreed to this calling. I love democracy…
I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature,
and I do not desire to see the destruction
of democracy. The power you give me I will
lay down when this crisis has abated,
I promise you. And as my first act with this
new authority, I will create a grand army of
the Republic to counter the increasing
threats of the separatists."

Derek Erdmann

@Everything I love is 2nd best:

"How does anybody support Obama anymore? Seriously, lets look at healthcare, Canada hates their healthcare, so does most of Europe, thats fact not fiction and yet we are sprinting towards healthcare."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!

Sounds like something people might want to educate themselves about rather than being a "Chicken Little". Sean, kudos to you and the editors for the sensationalism, hope you got a lot of hits.

Spiny Norman

@appletoad: Politicians like to give us crisis, or the illusion thereof, to make us do something. The health care crisis, financial crisis, continual war on terror, etc... There are threats, they are real, however, this is not one of those cases. Our most secure systems, are not on the internet as we know it. They used to be when there was one internet, but that has been a long time.
Yes you hear about DOD websites and servers being attacked, however, what the news won't tell you, is that those are the unclassified servers. Yes, you will hear about a contractor having Top Secret weapons data leaking out, but they didn't properly protect their data. Now there are ways to protect National Security Assets without going into the private sector, and those Assets are protected. I guarantee a hacker from the outside could not successfully hack Norad (without social engineering). No way. You have to be on the same network as Norad, and we aren't.

@Everything I love is 2nd best: Everything you just commented on has about 8% of the whole story attached to it. If you really think things are that black and white, you're never going to be satisfied (or knowledgeable) about how governance works.

@appletoad: Did you not see the words "private sector", this isn't some wire tapping. Instead of cutting government lines they would effectively unplug ISP's, which doesn't really make sense to me.

For the record, much like David Bowie, I am afraid of Americans.

hyperdiaper

WTF HELL NO MUST VOTE FUCK ON ON THIS NO PERSON SHOULD CONTROL THE INTERNET FILTER IN PUBLIC PLACES OK BUT OUT SIDE ONE BUILDING FUCK NO

killzpot

@draiko: Not sure my point was clear. I was trying to say that all those things are unconstitutional. You could maybe get away with controlling federally funded roads. Anything else is simply unconstitutional as no branch or government has been given such authority nor tasked with an objective under which such authority reasonably could be said to fall. So, I think we agree?

Weet

Hrm... sounds like governmental terrorism to me.

@streetceltic: thank you. Now for someone to promote this.

@appletoad: I agree with you my friend. It is know by most politically educated that you will lose freedom to gain protections or vice versa. You have to think about what all the government can do in a state of crisis. They can already cut power. So if some far off land hacks into power grids you'll be worried about reading your tweets when the government would pull the plugs on the grid anyway. No power no internet for you anyway. Like appletoad said sometime this serious does need to be done to protect you precious internet. Dead and connected is not the way I want to go out. How many more time do GOVERNMENT systems have to be "attemptively" hacked for you to see. New Day, New Rules.

streetceltic

Remember when Giz was all about love and adoration for Him? Guess that ship has sailed, huh?

Charles Hamilton

@vladdybear: Whats a constitution?

@object: I'm afraid you left out the ever important section which reads: (The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government). That means the gov can basically roam around and do whatever they want, do you really want that? Just like almost everything else, it has its benefits, but I do not consider the dangers to outweigh the benefits.

@SoaringDisbelief: Are you seriously supporting this? please tell me I am misinterpreting what you said.

How does anybody support Obama anymore? Seriously, lets look at healthcare, Canada hates their healthcare, so does most of Europe, thats fact not fiction and yet we are sprinting towards healthcare. He has spent literally trillions of OUR dollars and then will not disclose information on where the money went. Everything he has done so far is restricting our economy. Don't get me started with the ACORN fiasco. He is taking control of several private businesses and/or "stimulating them" with cash because they are "too big to fail" which is totally opposite of the market economy system. In his administration the minimum wage has risen, I benefit from this being a minimum wage worker while in High School but it has been shown in the past that every time we raise minimum wage, unemployment rises as with it. He is forcing automakers to raise overall fuel efficiency to numbers that are not currently met by any American-sold automaker for the 'benefit of the people' but all the while he is pushing for an energy bill which will tax us even greater and raise gas prices significantly. He has placed ironically poorly suited people to head government programs and offices. Ted Kennedy has recently passed on and now Democrats as a whole wish to change the law which they pushed for in the first place so they can get another seat in congress. I think that is plenty of reasons to get rid of the current administration.

Something similar happened with President W. Bush which is an administration with same-party congressional majority-- that is the worst combination of sheer uncontrolled power which we have seen but continue to do.

Anyways, lets keep the government out of what little we have "control" over or at least the illusion of control. Bush was ripped apart for violating privacy, with this bill, where are all those flag wavers now?

***Not part of any political party, Only a concerned American with semi-conservative beliefs***

@draiko:
And let's be honest: Giz wouldn't be calmly reporting this and asking "So what you do you guys think?" if they'd covered this news during the Bush administration. It would be "DAMN THAT FASCIST BUSH!!"

(And they would have been right.)

The_Gas_Man

@SoaringDisbelief: Does this mean I need to get off your lawn?

draiko

@Weet: It's different than roadways and airports, but not as different as TV and radio...

The internet is basically the world's largest printing press. Hand over control of that to the government and kiss your 1st Amendment goodbye!

Freedom of the press on the internet? Gone

Freedom of speech on the internet? Gone

Freedom to peacefully assemble (digitally)? Gone!

Right to petition (digitally)? GONE!!

You know those tinfoil hats that have been likening Obama's Administration to the Nazi party? I thought they were nutballs but now I think they may have a point.

Is there some kind of secret Sith invasion going on or something?

Absolutely horrendous!

draiko

Thank you Sean, for the very relevant post. However, I feel my many of my fellow readers can't handle this without causing a panic.

If north korea figures out how to hack into the nuclear bomb controlling computers in norad, then fuck, cut off the whole country's internet, snoop thorugh it all, I don't give a damn just do whatever it is you need to do.

Seriously people, they wouldn't use this power against a stupid net prank or denial of service. They aren't going to take over the network to see who looks at /b/. This isn't a phishing or spam or cp hunt. This is for extreme national security situations.

@the real that guy dave: *eyeroll*

Addendum: If they enact this crap, I'm either moving to another country or I will stop paying federal taxes in protest!

draiko

This bullcrap is totally crossing the line!!! Obama's posse is being more oppressive that Bush's now? WTF?!

draiko

And still people are going to make excuses for this administration. Why are we still at war? What happened to closing gitmo? Seriously, we are traveling down a scary and horrible path. And worst of all, they have all the guns.
Good luck, America!

-source: 1930's Germany

Prepare for false flags.

@nukee: Which, according to the bill, is having the government do it. They are the bestest at doing it right.

archercc

Wrong. Just wrong. Wrong on so many levels. Disgustingly wrong. Disturbingly wrong. Inappropriately wrong. Unequivocally wrong.

Uh, no thanks. F*ck you too.

So when we want to protest a rigged election they can shut down access to all social networking and peer communication?

Awesome!

archercc

@SoaringDisbelief: If a private company wants to win government contracts, they should be required to keep anything related to that contract off of any computer that is connected to the internet.
The same goes for power companies and any other critical systems. Any computer that controls any critical systems, such as the power grid or even hospital equipment, does not need to be connected to the internet.

There should be a separate secure network to connect any critical systems that need to be connected. This network should be the one that the government has control over. The internet that the general public uses should be left alone.

We already have separate networks such as Internet2, so this should be relatively easy to set up. In the long run, it would be much easier to secure a new network from the ground up than it woul dbe to try and fix the current iternet.

@SoaringDisbelief: Yes. Find me the place where where that power is defined and then we can talk.

Weet

@Weet: Because if you want something done right, you might as well do it yourself.

nukee

Plain and simple, hell no! They already have the ability to watch or IM chats e-mails and more. Why on earth would we let them be able to shut down google servers or Apple's Mobile me or Windows live servers anytime they want? Or worse peruse our personal info with abandon.

MMBman7171

@Psychicsword: If you read the article, it says things like "private sector computers", "'non-governmental' computer networks", and "private networks deemed to be critical". It's about protecting important networks and data in the private sector.

SoaringDisbelief

@kfonda: This is true of the most secure government networks and servers, which are generally not connected to the internet at large and are physically separate, but the bill is concerned for private ones that are much more susceptible to attack. And as I'm sure you know, if it's connected, someone with the know-how and resources can get in.

Also, we don't have to be talking about nuclear launch codes. To expand on my example above, it would be a large setback if a hostile nation got the schematics for a new missile defense system held on the servers of a private contractor. Or, it might not even be military, as another commenter suggested. What if an attacker gained access to the servers of a large bank or system of banks? They could gain information that compromises that banking system and Federal Reserve, not to mention the private financial data of millions of Americans. With a bill like this, the government would have the ability to quickly disconnect the servers of private networks that are, again, important to national security. You really don't want China knowing your name, Social Security number, your credit card number, and your bank account number and password (all of which I'm sure the bank has), do you?

SoaringDisbelief

Saul Alinsky book coming true

mailbox01

@LaraPandion I: Agreed but I disagree that revolutions are generally for a good cause. Revolutions often rely on significant distortion of facts and events to suit the purpose of the revolutionaries (which may or may not be to a good end). Usually the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes.

Weet

"a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals,""?? What, they expect everyone at Black Hat and Defcon to line up and fill out a form? Even better, requiring companies to only hire security guys who are on the government's little black list...ridiculous. EFF should love this.

Tired_

@Rabid Penguin: or computer to use it.

Why not just disconnect the government computers from the internet and connect them to a secure private government only network? Why should they be able to manipulate my network connection because of a threat to "national security"? This is insane.

Psychicsword

@metaslugx: they should have learned what happened to MediaMolecule and Little Big Planet...

@object: Yeah but why does the government need to be in charge of that? What's so hard about having a financial institution shut down/disconnect its own friggin server when it detects an attack? I just don't see the need.

Weet

Hmm, first it was a "special prisoner" (political prisoner) interrogation squad reportable only to the president.... now it's full control of the internet and the flow of information thereby (news websites). Am I the only one who sees where this is going? Really? Did we learn nothing from Germany?

RStormgull

@object: But it's so much more fun if you just read the title and scroll down to the comments to bash Obama!

SoaringDisbelief

@ddhboy: no, but you could stop all us based ISP's from providing internet if you had access to their system - I assume that's what this bill is all about - granting the gov access to all domestic ISP's internal systems.

If Morgan Freeman wouldn't accept the console to a machine that could use all the cellphones in a city to see all things from all perspectives via sonar, who are we to try this?

All I'm saying is Morgan Freeman > Barack Obama.

I mean, either side of the fence, we can all agree on this at least, right? Amirite? Guys?

just like burma when they shut off all forms of communication so the International community couldn't be informed of the atrocity thats happening there.

mailbox01

@Jackson the Narcisisst: i voted for bush and would do it again. i am merely commenting on the similarities between this administration and the last. get off my nuts

Nick

@SoaringDisbelief:
If a network is "critical to national security" then it should not be connected to the internet. There is no reason at all that this type of information can't be on a separate secure network.

@LaraPandion I: But during times of crisis, the government can already take control of television and radio. Hell, when there's a serve thunderstorm the broadcasting companies are required to "interrupt their regular programming to bring you this important announcement". It's just an extension for the 21st century, albeit a controversial one.

SoaringDisbelief

Did any of you actually read the article/bill? Its not about 'turning the internet off', which mind you, is almost logistically impossible. The bill would allow the government to disconnect certain servers from the internet, a completely different concept.

Say the Chinese decided 'Those American sons of bitches are going down' and launch a massive cyber attack. They begin siphoning off and deleting the financial history of the entire country. The bill would give the governmet the power to shut down all financial servers, as a method of damage control.

Have no fear, even if passed, you will still be able to spend your precious last moments on earth watching streaming internet porn, like you do every day.

object

@ddhboy: Al Gore knows exactly how to switch off that which he alone created. I"M TOTALLY CEREAL RIGHT NOW!!!

EpiphyteCorp.

@ddhboy: *Unless*....they had a lone hacker with "unlimited resources". Then, it's a piece of cake, do it in an afternoon. I mean, come on. How hard could it be?

@vladdybear: Just like the government taking over control of airports, roadways, television and radio broadcasts, etc. during times of crisis?

SoaringDisbelief

Giz, I know you guys aren't technically journalists, but when you write articles about things like this, you can't leave out important facts.

For example, the only person the above article suggests supports the bill is one Democratic Senator, and there is no hint of the bill having received wider support from his party, not least the rest of the Senate.

And as you can see by the ensuing comments, your article has given the impression of some involvement from the Obama White House, even though there are only passing references to Obama, who has had nothing to do in the drafting of the bill.

Kirril

@ddhboy: [www.turnofftheinternet.com]
And the internets is just a series of tubes. If China really wanted they could shut it all down by filling the tubes with butter.

The problem is that the internet is a communications infrastructure. That means not only are cyber attacks stifled, so is the freedom of speech. I view it more like the the king of England having the authority to shut down the printing presses in 1773 "in case of emergencies". I am fine with the President shutting down military and govt networks in cyber attacks, but he should have no authority over private communications. I am personally of the type that believes that if you have a large group of citizens uprising toward revolution, it is probably for good cause (revolutions generally are), and as such don't believe a govt should have that much ability to suppress its people. This is the realm of Iran, Cuba and China. In all cases suppression of communications were implemented under the guise of safety and protection of the citizens.

Disclaimer: I was every bit as opposed to Bush and the Patriot act as to this, have never checked the box for being affiliated with Republican or Democrat in my life as I find both parties to have their repulsive traits.

LaraPandion I

@Nick: thank you. now that we have got the requisite "Bush's fault" comment out of the way maybe we can actually make comments that pertain to the topic....and are logical, or at least funny.

This is so unconstitutional

@Rabid Penguin: Shhh... don't say things like that. While most people know you're joking, there are some who believe things like that because it confirms what they "know" about Obama's "Socialist agenda" for the US, and how the entire country thinks he's God and should rule us for generations to come.

SoaringDisbelief

Too bad it would never fucking work. Seriously, our congressmen need to stop watching so many movies. There's no "shut down the internet" button, and no country has control on portions of the internet in their country, let alone the internet at large.

ddhboy

@deanbmmv: Nothing happened...yet...it takes time to shut down all the internets.

@charade2joe: There's a huge difference - with healthcare, Obama seeks to offer a gov't funded option to those who can't afford private healthcare. He's not out to destroy healthcare as we know it - just add a public option into the mix along with some much needed reform.

The internet is a different story - the internet is a great big multinational network, and giving the prez the right to pull the plug and seize any data the gov't might want is an invasion of privacy, and an all around dick move...

"oh no!! the president's approval rating is down!"

"declare a cybersecutiry emergency and shut off the internet for a day or two - taht'll shut them up!"

While it's a good idea to allow the disconnect of networks that threaten national security. The guidelines to do so need to be clearly laid out and this should be used as a last resort for something that could do great harm to the US.

nukee

@Rabid Penguin: I pushed it. nothing happened. Kinda lame. I was expecting it to alt+f4 or something.

@SoaringDisbelief: yep..you keep believing that.

thanks morons....you voted in a fascist dictator and an unstoppable legislature full of spineless jellyfish lemmings to follow him....thanks.

@SoaringDisbelief: Nuh uh!!!
jk

EpiphyteCorp.

It is a move any aspiring dictator, or facist state would make. I am not saying that is the motive behind the bill, but it does grant the power that despots seek. For all the folks who trust Obama to do the right thing with this power, just realize eventually the power will swing back to the party you oppose and dread (it is rare for a political party to hold the presidency for more than two consecutive presidents).

LaraPandion I

@SoaringDisbelief: How dare you! How dare you interject rational dialog into my stream of excited whoops and gruntings!

SOCIALISM! OBAMA! ARGGhghgbblle!

Oh noes! How will get our Gizmodo and pron if they shut down the interwebz?

@ahbi: Seems to me Republicans like to take certain liberties away in the name of "safety".

masshuum

The President just looks cool. Even when he's cutting off the internet.

electronymous

Overall, it's not that bad an idea. The government can shut down or take over airports, roadways, television, radio, etc. when there's a serious threat, and as the internet becomes bigger (and badder) the threat to National Security rises as well. The biggest problem, as some have pointed out, is the vagueness. With more clarification on when, why, how, and for how long the White House can control the internet, it could be a useful and necessary measurement for the government to take in the event of a threat.

And also, before people run around rambling about "government control" and how this is another step in Obama's plan to take over the country and turn it into a Socialist utopia, think about what it could mean. In the even of an attack from a technologically advanced, or even technologically superior (China?) nation, where there is a real compromise in the security of data and networks crucial to the safety of the nation, having the ability to control the internet access and usage of the nation for a short period of time without having to go through time-consuming bureaucracy could be the deciding factor between an averted threat and a "Live Free or Die Hard" situation. Being without Gizmodo and/or your porn for 24 hours won't kill you, but a nuclear strike that wasn't prevented because the military networks were hacked into will.

EDIT: I re-read the quotes and saw that it's mainly about private networks "critical" to national security. Still, think about this: If the networks of a major defense contractor (think Boeing or anyone else involved in large amounts of military equipment) were compromised by a hostile nation, that is information that could be very easily turned against us in a short period of time. Or, imagine if the network of a company responsible for installing security systems at a government data center was compromised, and the attackers found out that parts of the security system would be down for an hour on Monday night for new installations and upgrades. That's a pretty gaping security hole just because the network of a non-government entity was compromised.

SoaringDisbelief

time for the hats.

@ahbi:
I hear there's a bill in the senate right now that would get rid of presidential term limits and eliminate the need for voting. It'll help to streamline the whole election process and eliminate paper waste caused during voting.

So whether we bestow powers on Obama personally or the president is really a mute point since they are, and will always be the same person.

"Good, good"

Senator Palpatine just jizzed a little inside of long flowing, oversized snuggie..

Now that's a scary thought. Do people really think this is a good idea?

As an aside, I love that picture! Priceless!

@EpiphyteCorp.: Yeah but your boyfriend will throw him down a service shaft in a few decades

No sir, I don't like it.

Bill Groesbeck

So what happens to the people that works from home, they won't be able to get any work done then.
All these online retailers will lose thousands of dollars.
Lots of businesses relay on the internet to do their work.

Change!

"get off my turf"

- al gore

Nick

This will be a power only held by Democratic Presidents, correct?
Because is a Republican President did this it would be a shredding of our Constitution and a violation of our Civil Right.

Or are we just giving this power to Barak Obama personally?

ahbi

So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.

EpiphyteCorp.

It makes sense that something like this has come to be; if electronic communication and accountability are ever to be seriously counted on as a means to officially share information, the government must intervene on it's own behalf to protect it.

To put it another way, if you ever want more integration with federal services in the internet, the government has to provide a measure of protection against fraud, hacking, outages, etc.

I always pictured a two-tier system, an 'undernet', the commercial wild-west internet we have now, and an 'overnet', the federally sanctioned internet where a device must be licensed to operate. You'd have your normal PC or whatever to go on the undernet, and some kind of low cost terminal to connect to the overnet. Bill pay, voting, civil services and all that boring stuff would migrate to the overnet. Also, the overnet would be served on lines and equipment separate from the undernet (kind of like SIPRNET/NIPRNET)

NO FUCKING WAY!

I don't care if it's raining Nazi zombies and tactical nukes. That Hawaiian cocksucker will have to pry my laptop from my cold dead hands.

If anyone tries to take my Internets, they'll catch a facefull of baseball bat.

No way no how! I dont give a shit about national security! If I can't watch my YOUTUEBZ or update my TWEETS I don't know what I'll do! Back off Obama! Leave my internet ALONE!!!

macpatrick

You knew this was going to happen after the North Koreans hacked several US government websites last month.

Uh... there's constant cyber "attacks" going on. So what exactly constitutes an emergency?

You did not just photohsop a black mans face over a white mans?
Hypocrites!! :P

sounds like the president was rearranging the furniture in the oval office and found an old bush administration bill that fell behind a book shelf.

Nick

@im.thatoneguy2: I don't think anyone is saying that there should be NO governmental intervention in our lives. But most of the things that you list are managed on a local level. Roads, sewers, and water are all covered by local governments. Even the interstate highway system is maintained by local authorities. As far as radio and airspace go, I think it's rather self-evident why a national authority is needed.

The problem with this bill is that it puts the power in the hands of the President, with no checks and balances. Look at it this way: would you feel comfortable if President Bush had this power?

Shivved

@Rabid Penguin: I think I want to push it...

Gah it's Die Hard 4!!!! I'll be @ kevin smith's house.

TheCrudMan

@Rabid Penguin: I only have 9 internets. Some nice people gave them to me.
I've seen some folk give away 100 internets

No

No
No

No.

Thanks.

LeeMarvinsPants

@mailbox01: dun DUN DUNNNN! *twirls mustache*

@twig05: If the internet czar turns off the internet then what would the porn czar do?

@Raw_fishFood: look what happened with norad 8 years ago

bagseed

Didn't everyone have a stroke a few months ago when the Iranian Government took control of the internet during an emergency?

Damn it... didn't we learn in the last 30+ years that all decisions based upon fear is simply going to limit our freedom.

Fear from terrorists, fear from nuclear missiles, fear from the North Koreans... sooner or later, we the people will fear our government and their control, not what lies outside the walls of our country.

tenazrael

i feel a czar coming right about..... now

twig05

[www.turnofftheinternet.com]

I'm afraid to push it =O

Since the Major TV Networks bows to the President, all he has to do is declare an emergency, cut the internet, and the people will not be able to communicate. USA will become a Facist or Socialist state and the People will not be able to stop it.

mailbox01

@Raw_fishFood: Yeah unlike the Road System, electrical infrastructure, water, sewers, phones, radios, waterways and airspace.... the INTERNET is where we should draw the line.

im.thatoneguy2

Right... because regulation of the internet is... so... easy...

metaslugx

@charade2joe: We're only days away from Obama deciding when I am allowed to Pee!

im.thatoneguy2

@charade2joe:

Access to the internet is a right! Just like health care and seven day weekends! It's not my fault I don't want to work!

So you should share some of your internets with me, you greedy bastard!

Why not. Maybe they could ask China and Iran from some advise on implementation.

RyaninCalgary

Alex Jones has been screaming this for months. he apparently has seen the rooms where the "switches" tuned to the EBN and attached to the servers. He also claims Web 2.0 is an effort to enslave us as we will rely on it, and the lack of information from a "free" net will allow propaganda. Also, there's body scanning, predator drones, GPS, etc... involved, so they know where you are when you're online so they can send body seeking missles to blow you up should you upset the "Gov."

Won't get passed. Going to sleep now. kthanxbi

justagigilo85

"Twitter's down! Quick! Enable the Cybersecurity Emergency Protocol! Get that dude with the football in here now so I can enter to codes to shut off the Internet!"

On a scale of 1-10 rating stupid ideas with 10 being the stupidest, this one rates about a 14.

winkydink

I think this bill should be used to redistribute the internets. I think some of the internets should be taken from those greedy, capitalist, corporations, and given to poorer folk who don't have any internets!

First our healthcare, now our internet. I guess i could skip the wait for speed cameras handing out tickets in the mail and just move to England. The President wants to be able to control every aspect of our living and this is just another example

charade2joe

I don't really see a point. If "the bad guys" knew about this, don't you think they'd find a workaround? Disconnecting the net would pretty much just piss everyone off.

LTJPunkass

Every /b/tard in the world is losing their god damned mind right now, I'm sure.

More governmental control = bad. Especially when it comes to the internet. When a government takes power in emergency situations, it tends to not want to relinquish that power. Having that control over the internet is a bad thing.

Raw_fishFood

"Internet, I brought you into this world -- I can take you out!"

-DARPA

I agree with the "vague." It's too open-ended. I don't necessarily dislike the idea of the White House having power over the internet, but I want a clearly outlined list of what he can and can't do.

I trust that they would only pull the plug in a true emergency. A lot of damage could be done if they fool around in companies private networks. Tread carefully...

Great (Insert heavy sarcasm here) we are about to be regulated.

Software_Goddess

I'll withhold my judgment on this until someone with more applicable experience takes a look at it... Any links to the old bill and revised bill would be appreciated in any case.

Grinning Kestrel

No thanks. Do not like.

AceBytes

It's for the children.