Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It wont happen.

I'm fairly certain the internet doesn't work that way. Strictly speaking there is no single internet, it's a term that refers to many many interwoven networks owned by innumerable different people all over the world, traveling through all sorts of different transmission systems. Obama couldn't shut it down if he wanted to (well I suppose he could but if you're willing to blow up half the country I don't think there's much point in taking the time to pass laws)

Bill name/ID plz?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bill name/ID plz?

Here's the whole thing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33164923/Protecting-Cyberspace-As-A-National-Asset-Act

The teabaggers are right!

Originally posted by inimalist
Can you explain, technically, how this would work?

How would a US president literally go about this?

There'd be a red button under a glass dome that only Obama is able to open.

but i mean after that

what does the button do?

like, stops all wired communication in the nation while simultaneously shutting down all cellular technology...

is that even possible, like even if all ISPs and phone companies were in on it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm fairly certain the internet doesn't work that way. Strictly speaking there is no single internet, it's a term that refers to many many interwoven networks owned by innumerable different people all over the world, traveling through all sorts of different transmission systems. Obama couldn't shut it down if he wanted to (well I suppose he could but if you're willing to blow up half the country I don't think there's much point in taking the time to pass laws)


Would it really be that hard to shut down the internet though? Wouldn't you simply need to shut down the servers?

Originally posted by inimalist
but i mean after that

what does the button do?

like, stops all wired communication in the nation while simultaneously shutting down all cellular technology...

is that even possible, like even if all ISPs and phone companies were in on it?

Button would send a signal that would completely shut-down all phone, cable and/or communication companies, all at the same frikken time. Obama is so sick.

I have to say, this strikes me as making the leap from the fact that police are allowed to shut down the street to thinking that the President is secretly plotting to shut down the highways...

Originally posted by Robtard
Button would send a signal that would completely shut-down all phone, cable and/or communication companies, all at the same frikken time. Obama is so sick.

everybody asks "what change?"

BLAM, internet is dead! hows that for change

Originally posted by Robtard
There'd be a red button under a glass dome that only Obama is able to open.

I was being serious though, I read your article and a couple others on the net and I don't understand what exactly is going on to make you present this as a kill switch?

It would derail everything. Too many schools and businesses depend on email.

And many universities have a Text Alert system for emergencies like a campus intruder. Imagine that: Obama facilitated a school shooting because the students didn't get the memo, and got shot in the student union when they would've been barracaded in their apartment.

Also, think of how many gamers and porno-addicts this would upset, it'd be a death-blow in the elections.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Would it really be that hard to shut down the internet though? Wouldn't you simply need to shut down the servers?

All of them? That involves facing down individual citizens, major corporations and other countries. I doubt many of those people are going to back down. The alternative is to just destroy all the servers in the US (still impossible) and then destroy all connections to the outside world (also impossible).

You also can't keep the internet shut down. Servers built with 1970s era technology were just the size of a desk, they're much smaller and more powerful today. The internet would be knocked back to usenet levels but it would still exist unless Obama also destroys all connections between places in the US (cut all the phone lies, destroy all the satellites etc)

So basically to believe this is a threat of any sort you have to accept that Obama is going to crush the population US beneath his heel, wrecking the nation's entire infrastructure in the process. And really if you believe that then you have to wonder why he's passing laws and not rolling tanks across your lawn.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All of them? That involves facing down individual citizens, major corporations and other countries. I doubt many of those people are going to back down. The alternative is to just destroy all the servers in the US (still impossible) and then destroy all connections to the outside world (also impossible).

You also can't keep the internet shut down. Servers built with 1970s era technology were just the size of a desk, they're much smaller and more powerful today. The internet would be knocked back to usenet levels but it would still exist unless Obama also destroys all connections between places in the US (cut all the phone lies, destroy all the satellites etc)

So basically to believe this is a threat of any sort you have to accept that Obama is going to crush the population US beneath his heel, wrecking the nation's entire infrastructure in the process. And really if you believe that then you have to wonder why he's passing laws and not rolling tanks across your lawn.

the bill creates a new office of interney policy or someting that all network and maybe communication companies have to comply with, and who, during a time of emergency, would have nearly direct control over these bodies (I couldn't find the exact specifics, but lets say its complete). If he had people's 100% compliance, couldn't he just declare an emergency and have that infrastructure cut off?

he knows if he shuts down internet he isnt gonna get re elected. dont think he will get re elected anyways.

Originally posted by inimalist
the bill creates a new office of interney policy or someting that all network and maybe communication companies have to comply with, and who, during a time of emergency, would have nearly direct control over these bodies (I couldn't find the exact specifics, but lets say its complete). If he had people's 100% compliance, couldn't he just declare an emergency and have that infrastructure cut off?

"The owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure shall have flexibility to implement any security measure, or combination thereof, to satisfy the security performance requirements described in subparagraph (A) and the Director may not disapprove under this section any proposed security measures, or combination thereof, based on the presence or absence of any particular security measure if the proposed security measures, or combination thereof, satisfy the security performance requirements established by the Director under this section." (page 75, the section is 248)

So it seems that as long as they do something the office has very limited powers. Their sphere of absolute control is government offices that aren't part of the DoD.

Unless Obama has a button that can instantly kill carrier pigeons, he's not stopping the flow of information.

Obaman can't control the internet.

That's my job.

so once barry pulls the plug on the internet, i guess i must other ways to entertain myself then

A lot of people are going to lose millions or billions.

It would be political suicide for any president who pushes that button. But if he or she is very unpopular with zero chance of re-election, then to hell it; with why not? "Take this, America!"

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would be literal suicide for any President who pushes that button.

fix'd

that was actually why I made the comparison to shutting down highways. it is an act so invasive into the lives of normal people that any authority that tried it would face open insurrection.

ronald reagan invented the internet right ? so how come he doesnt have his own switch to shut if off ?

Originally posted by inimalist
that was actually why I made the comparison to shutting down highways. it is an act so invasive into the lives of normal people that any authority that tried it would face open insurrection.

I think you exaggerate. Yeah, the president who did that would piss people off, but it wouldn't become a Marie Antoinette situation.

Originally posted by chomperx9
ronald reagan invented the internet right ? so how come he doesnt have his own switch to shut if off ?

Because he's dead?

i remember when there was no internet. when there was ps1 on a nice day.

but to other people, like most women and metros, they'd lose it if they didn't have access to twitter for more than 5 mins. like they'd literally die. like their hearts'd just stop beating. so if obama doesn't want all that blood on his hands he'll not press this button.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
most women

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i remember when there was no internet. when there was ps1 on a nice day.

but to other people, like most women and metros, they'd lose it if they didn't have access to twitter for more than 5 mins. like they'd literally die. like their hearts'd just stop beating. so if obama doesn't want all that blood on his hands he'll not press this button.

I don't know what is more astounding, your essentialism of women as net crazy or of "real men" as apathetic to the Internet.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think you exaggerate. Yeah, the president who did that would piss people off, but it wouldn't become a Marie Antoinette situation.



Because he's dead? yeah but im sure family members or something has taken control over it.

Originally posted by chomperx9
ronald reagan invented the internet right ? so how come he doesnt have his own switch to shut if off ? No, Al Gore did.

He invented most things, in fact.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know what is more astounding, your essentialism of women as net crazy or of "real men" as apathetic to the Internet.

i'm not generalising all women i wrote "most women". it's true that the female species are the gabbers of the human race and twitter is the ultimate place to do that.

i've seen women go through mild breakdowns and ill tempers because twitter's been down; crazy arguments amoung eachother, fights. while i've never seen a man do that over a downed social website. now i'm not saying men don't care. in fact i've never wrote anything about that all so where you got that astounds me. and you missed my point. basically obama shutting down the internet wouldn't be a good thing, moreso for certain groups than others.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i'm not generalising all women i wrote "most women". it's true that the female species are the gabbers of the human race and twitter is the ultimate place to do that.

i've seen women go through mild breakdowns and ill tempers because twitter's been down; crazy arguments amoung eachother, fights. while i've never seen a man do that over a downed social website. now i'm not saying men don't care. in fact i've never wrote anything about that all so where you got that astounds me. and you missed my point. basically obama shutting down the internet wouldn't be a good thing, moreso for certain groups than others.

exhibit a: why feminism is still very relevant

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think you exaggerate. Yeah, the president who did that would piss people off, but it wouldn't become a Marie Antoinette situation.

well, maybe not fighting in the streets, but no way corporations, let alone the common man, would follow those laws.

by insurection I sort of meant almost defacto disobediance of the law. there is only so long even the most non-rebelious person will accept the Internet being taken down by the gov.

Originally posted by inimalist
exhibit a: why feminism is still very relevant

wrong. femenism is alive today because of double standars, a false sense of entitlement, gynocrats, manginas, and the media. america's creation of this new highly protected feminine class is why femenism is still relevant today.


and it's gotten worse. women, now more than ever, are looking past equality and eyeing superiority, while still demanding chivalry.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think you exaggerate. Yeah, the president who did that would piss people off, but it wouldn't become a Marie Antoinette situation.

It gets more and more likely with every day that passes. For a lot of people it would be similar to a president thirty years ago shutting down TV and phone lines all across the country.

Originally posted by The Nuul
It wont happen.

yeah fortunately it wont happen.They will keep on desperately trying to get it passed but it wont because there are too many states that are opposed to it.

if you think this bill is really that bad, you might want to look up what a couple of Russian teens were able to do to Estonia

Originally posted by inimalist
if you think this bill is really that bad, you might want to look up what a couple of Russian teens were able to do to Estonia Or you could just tell us.

Originally posted by Mindset
Or you could just tell us.

Google =

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273294,00.html

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/estonia-recovers-massive-denial-service-attack-188

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6665195.stm

Cyberthugs possibly working at the behest of the Kremlin have launched Internet attacks on the Baltic nation of Estonia, according to European media reports.

Government ministries, banks, newspapers and political parties in the tiny nation of 1.1 million people have had to block access to their Web sites from other countries in the face of the crippling directed-denial-of-service attacks, in which tens of thousands of computers bombard Web servers with millions of useless requests for information.

The attacks began shortly after a week of riots in the capital, Tallinn, following the April 26 removal of a World War II Soviet soldier's statue from a public square. -end snip

Originally posted by Mindset
Or you could just tell us.

Estonia decided it wanted to move a soviet era statue to a less auspiscious location. this upset ethnic Russians, and started a heated Internet flame war.

a small group of young Russian nationalists orchestrated a "denial of service" attack against the estonian state. all financial and social services ground to a halt, all economic activity at all levels stopped. estonia essentially had to cut off all it's connections to the outside world to end the chaos.

this was a generally uncoordinated, unsustained and amature attack meant only to annoy, launched by teens. without the ability to respond to this type of attack, any interested party could attempt this against America, and information war is seen as the next real frontier.

Russian hack team vs. /b/

Let's do it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All of them? That involves facing down individual citizens, major corporations and other countries. I doubt many of those people are going to back down. The alternative is to just destroy all the servers in the US (still impossible) and then destroy all connections to the outside world (also impossible).

You also can't keep the internet shut down. Servers built with 1970s era technology were just the size of a desk, they're much smaller and more powerful today. The internet would be knocked back to usenet levels but it would still exist unless Obama also destroys all connections between places in the US (cut all the phone lies, destroy all the satellites etc)

So basically to believe this is a threat of any sort you have to accept that Obama is going to crush the population US beneath his heel, wrecking the nation's entire infrastructure in the process. And really if you believe that then you have to wonder why he's passing laws and not rolling tanks across your lawn.

I understand that it would be extremely difficult to completely shut down the internet but would it really be that hard to deny the majority of the general, American populace internet access? I'm sure it wouldn't be to hard for a bill to pass that forces, private American internet providers to comply to government commands. Or would it? I'm not very knowledgeable with these things but if my cable company can deny me internet access at any time, the subject of this topic doesn't seem unrealistic