Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

[Renegade]

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor...


...While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet...

...Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state.

Ahem... Do the words

NSFW

Fuck off and leave us alone

have any meaning?

Sneaky, and dangerous.

Why is every year 1984 lately?

[mrainey]

Why is every year 1984 lately?

Why does every political event or medical event, or even current event, spawn a dozen different conspiracy theories?



(I didn't write the following - it was at the end of the "kill switch" story.)

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are "they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY

[Deozaan]

Four months? Why so long?

I've got a bad feeling about this.

[Renegade]

Why is every year 1984 lately?

Why does every political event or medical event, or even current event, spawn a dozen different conspiracy theories?



(I didn't write the following - it was at the end of the "kill switch" story.)

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are "they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY

-mrainey (June 27, 2010, 03:35 PM)

It's extreme. It's cutting off the top form of communication. Why would you need to do this? There is no reason at all for it. Given the state of technology today for traffic shaping and filtering, there just isn't a reason. Well... Not a legitimate reason.

These are the kinds of things that governments do to suppress their civilian populations. It has happened before. It is happening today. And with this, it may very well happen in the "home of the free and the land of the brave".

It's not a conspiracy when it's right out in the open for everyone to see.

I used the 1984 metaphor because there are far too many things like this happening. Increased legislation that restricts basic freedoms, like the freedom to communicate, is becoming more and more common. It's a slippery slope, and we're teetering at the edge of a very steep slope.

In Australia they have Internet censoring legislation. It's not too dissimilar to what China has. Is this a good thing? Do you want to be fed "approved" information? I don't.

There are some very sick people out there, like the nut cases at Stormfront, and while I vehemently disagree with them, I most certainly support their right to have their own beliefs and put up sites/garbage about those beliefs.

What other metaphor fits for when the state blocks communications for its population?

We have organizations that monitor these kinds of things to one degree or another -- an EFF article (just the end part to see how they describe this kind of behavior):

EFF will continue to monitor these events. For some ideas on ways to speak freely without falling victim to authoritarian surveillance and censorship, and ways for the rest of us to help support the worldwide community, check out EFF's Surveillance Self Defense International.

I may be paranoid about some things. I don't think I'm stretching with the metaphor in this case. It's pretty obvious that it's just very far beyond reasonable.

[mrainey]

Our government has always been skeptical about freedom and civil liberties, especially in time of war.  Only the technology has changed.

Read the whole page.
http://www.pbs.org/n...litics/timeline.html

[cthorpe]

Another side to the story: http://tpmdc.talking...rnet-kill-switch.php

But, surprising it was -- especially to Lieberman and his staff on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. They argued that, in fact, the bill limited the powers already invested in the President to shut down telecommunications providers. Leslie Phillips, the communications director for the committee, said, "The very purpose of this legislation is to replace the sledgehammer of the 1934 Communications Act with a scalpel." So, who is right?

A review of the 1934 Telecommunications Act (as amended in 1996) does indicate that the President has broad powers to simply shut off any and all regulated telecommunications if he deems it necessary for national security. Section 706 of the Act, entitled "War Emergency -- Powers of the President" says:

...

Lieberman's Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 (S. 3480) is, thankfully, somewhat more complex than that. It requires that owners of critical infrastructure, a definition that dates to the PATRIOT Act, work with the newly created director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications within the Department of Homeland Security, to develop a risk assessment and a plan to mitigate their risks in the case of a national cyber emergency. If an emergency is declared, that director will:

    (A) immediately direct the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure subject to the declaration under paragraph (1) to implement response plans required under section 248(b)(2)(C);

    (B) develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure;

    (C) ensure that emergency measures or actions directed under this section represent the least disruptive means feasible to the operations of the covered critical infrastructure

None of those response plans expressly require that telecommunications providers develop a kill switch; in fact, the director is prohibited from requiring an critical infrastructure owner or operators from using any specific mechanism.

[app103]

Wikipedia has some interesting stuff with regards to the US and "state of emergency"

http://en.wikipedia....rgency#United_States

On December 16, 1950, during the Korean War, President Truman issued Presidential Proclamation No. 2914,[22] declaring a state of national emergency[23]. The Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established in 1952 during this emergency that presidents may not act contrary to Acts of Congress during an emergency.

During the Watergate scandal which erupted in the 1970s after president Richard Nixon allowed illegal actions, Congress investigated the extent of the President's powers and belatedly realized that the U.S. had been in a continuous state of emergency since 1950. As a result, in 1976 the National Emergencies Act set a limit of two years on emergency declarations unless the president explicitly extends them, and requiring the president to specify in advance which legal provisions will be invoked. The Act terminated the emergency of 1950 on September 14, 1978[24]; however, even in the 21st century, the federal courts have upheld harsh penalties (including deportation) for crimes that occurred during the state of national emergency from 1950 to 1978, where the penalties were escalated because of the existence of that emergency.[22]

The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during a declared emergency.

That's a pretty big "oops, I forgot".

And when was the last declared state of emergency in the US?

The United States is formally in an ongoing limited state of emergency declared by several Presidents for several reasons. A state of emergency began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947 by President Bill Clinton. In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order's actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with "Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process".[25] This "national emergency" was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden,[26] and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush.[27] There are a number of other ongoing national emergencies of this type, referenced at [1]
 
and [2]
 
, regarding for instance diamond trade with Sierra Leone. Especially noteworthy are the ongoing states of emergency declared on November 14, 1979 regarding the Iran Hostage Crisis.[28], that declared on March 15, 1995 with respect to Iran,[29] and that declared on September 14, 2001 through Bush's Proclamation 7463, regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.[30]

President Barack Obama extended George Bush's Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009 [31] and later declared a National Emergency on October 24, 2009 for the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic, aiming to increase abilities for hospitals and medical centers to handle "swine flu" cases, responding to CDC reports stating that swine flu has become widespread in 46 of 50 U.S. states.

Now, if you are so worried that declaring a state of emergency will mean the automatic shutdown of the internet, don't be. Just because a number of provisions exist within the law for a president to take certain actions doesn't mean he will. If the provision to shut down the internet had existed back when Obama declared the state of emergency related to swine flu, it wouldn't have made any sense to shut down the internet and cut off access of citizens to vital information related to protecting themselves from swine flu. And the provision allowing the freezing of assets and confiscation of property during a declared emergency already existed at that time, yet I don't recall any stories about anyone losing their property or having their assets frozen as a result of the swine flu emergency.

[app103]

(I didn't write the following - it was at the end of the "kill switch" story.)

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are "they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY

-mrainey (June 27, 2010, 03:35 PM)

That is actually an ad for an atrociously designed website selling pdf files on alternative medicine (quackery), written by a former bodybuilder accountant who does "medical research" as a hobby, and has probably read one too many "get rich quick on the internet" ebooks. 

[CWuestefeld]

Our government has always been skeptical about freedom and civil liberties, especially in time of war.

-mrainey (June 27, 2010, 05:22 PM)

Your post implies that this is a time of war. Let me remind you that we are *not* at war. The USA has not declared a war since WWII. Doing so requires a great deal of political resolve, and the bar is set that high for a good reason. We can't cede to the government all the powers that might be required for successfully waging a war when the government hasn't themselves expended to political capital to declare the war.

[mrainey]

Your post implies that this is a time of war.

Seems to me that it's a "time of war", even though it might not be a declared war.  For my money, hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people are proof enough.

[40hz]

Your post implies that this is a time of war.

Seems to me that it's a "time of war", even though it might not be a declared war.  For my money, hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people are proof enough.

-mrainey (June 28, 2010, 12:27 PM)

+1 w/mrainey

When you can deploy over a quarter of a million US service people overseas and keep them there for going on a decade, and spend three trillion dollars in the process - then we are at war.

And all the legalese, think tank mumbo-jumbo, and Washington double-talk isn't gonna change that.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg.   - Abraham Lincoln

Same goes for not calling something what it is.

--------------------

Note: Funny how this whole thing was called a war until we learned we weren't going to "win it" as quickly and decisively as we thought. And as time drags on, it's becoming increasingly questionable whether we can "win it" (whatever 'it' is) at all.

But since the US never loses a war, it's now become quite obvious to some that this 'military engagement' can't be considered a war. Because if it were a war, we'd have already won it! QED

 

[Deozaan]

Now, if you are so worried that declaring a state of emergency will mean the automatic shutdown of the internet, don't be. Just because a number of provisions exist within the law for a president to take certain actions doesn't mean he will.

-app103 (June 28, 2010, 12:47 AM)

Maybe this president won't, but some future president might. I don't like anything that brings the President's powers closer to that of a totalitarian.

Besides, why should the government have a kill switch on the entire internet? What does the nation's security have anything to do with my house getting some bandwidth? In this day and age it's like shutting down the telephone system (thirty years ago) because a terrorist is using a phone to organize attacks.

Kill the internet to the White House or the Pentagon or whatever is under cyber attack, but there's no need to kill it in my local community. The only reason to shut it down everywhere in the nation is for conspiracy theory reasons, like the government being overthrown or the government suppressing the people/citizens to cover something up.

[CWuestefeld]

When you can deploy over a quarter of a million US service people overseas and keep them there for going on a decade, and spend three trillion dollars in the process - then we are at war.
...
Same goes for not calling something what it is.

-40hz (June 28, 2010, 04:47 PM)

The thing is, your logic gives government unlimited power. On the one hand, they've transgressed, upsetting the lives of millions of Americans (not to mention the foreigners), and spent hundreds of billions of dollars of our money.

Now, you're saying that because they've done that, we should knuckle under and accept other curtailments of our freedom as well? That just doesn't make sense.

[40hz]

The only thing I see that's different is the President now has the legal authority to hit the kill switch.

The ability and power to do so were already there.

Not that it matters. The US government has become very comfortable with legal and constitutional ambiguities. And the Executive Office has always been granted considerable flexibility and discretion when it bumps up against laws limiting its powers. And in situations where this flex doesn't exist, the Executive Branch often creates it's own. 

I view this as something akin to the warning label on cigarettes. You knew those things could kill you before they issued the warning. The only difference is that now the risk has been officially acknowledged.
    

[40hz]

When you can deploy over a quarter of a million US service people overseas and keep them there for going on a decade, and spend three trillion dollars in the process - then we are at war.
...
Same goes for not calling something what it is.

-40hz (June 28, 2010, 04:47 PM)

The thing is, your logic gives government unlimited power. On the one hand, they've transgressed, upsetting the lives of millions of Americans (not to mention the foreigners), and spent hundreds of billions of dollars of our money.

Now, you're saying that because they've done that, we should knuckle under and accept other curtailments of our freedom as well? That just doesn't make sense.

-CWuestefeld (June 28, 2010, 08:20 PM)

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that trying to put a pretty face on a situation by calling it something it's not plays into the hands of those who are abusing their political power.

The first step to overcoming an addiction is to acknowledge you have an addiction. And the first step to finding a solution to a problem is to accept that you have the problem. But you're never going to solve the problem or right the wrong until you stop trying to get around an unpleasent reality by calling it anything other than what it is.  

Right now it's not so much a question of preventing the governent from doing a power grab. They've already done one. Now the question is how do you get the control restored to the citizens. Because as things stand with all the new 'emergency' powers the government has been procedurally (since I'd hestate to characterize it as legally) granted, the United States meets the definition of a police state.

So I'm not granting the government anything. All I'm doing is calling a duck a duck.

And like it or not, our government does have de facto unlimited power. How much of it gets used is only regulated by it's willingness to let itself be regulated by law. If it is unwilling to accept legal limitations, it ignores the law. This can be made easier if the citizens give government their tacit approval to do so. National emergencies and patriotic fervor are good for that. But that's not absolutely necessary for laws to be ignored.  Take a look at any good political history of the US for examples. Sidestepping the law is nothing new for our government. In some respects, the overall 'theme' of American political history is the story of how all real power gradually came to be centered in the federal Executive Branch.    

[Carol Haynes]

How much compensation will internet based companies be entitled to? And what about multinationals trading in the US?

If it was actually used - even for 5 minutes - the law suits would grind the US government to a halt for years!

[40hz]

How much compensation will internet based companies be entitled to? And what about multinationals trading in the US?

If it was actually used - even for 5 minutes - the law suits would grind the US government to a halt for years!

-Carol Haynes (June 29, 2010, 12:19 PM)

Not necessarily. I'm guessing they'd get zip assuming they even made it into court.

I don't know enough about international law to know how the USA could be sued somewhere other than in the United States. But in this country, it's very difficult to sue the Feds. That's because our government has sovereign immunity under US law.

So unlike John Bull, Uncle Sam can't be sued in federal court unless he agrees to let you sue him.

From Wikipedia: (empahsis added.)

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction  on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.

As the Wikipedia points out, there are some cases where immunity is considered waived by other legislation. But even then, there are enough limits and statutory exceptions that it doesn't amount to much.

From my personal experience with the Feds, there seems to be a simple rule in effect. You are allowed to sue only if an individual employee in federal department or agency did something that resulted in monetary damages; or, if some government agency breached a commercial contract they signed with you by refusing to pay.

Otherwise, you can forget it.

When it comes to issues beyond basic tort and contract claims, the only time I've ever seen the government allow itself to be sued is when it is 100% sure it will win in court. The reason it does that is because sovereign immunity doesn't play out too well politically. It's heavy handed. And it comes as a shock to most people when they discover such a thing exists.

So Uncle Sam prefers to secure favorable court rulings in order to establish legal precedent whenever possible. Not that he really needs to. It's just that it looks better that way.

[mrainey]

The reason it does that is because sovereign immunity doesn't play out too well politically.

The Pope is learning about that.

[app103]

I don't know enough about international law to know how the USA could be sued somewhere other than in the United States. But in this country, it's very difficult to sue the Feds. That's because our government has sovereign immunity under US law.

-40hz (June 29, 2010, 01:10 PM)

I discovered something similar when researching snow removal laws and liability in my state (NJ).

If you leave the snow alone in front of your home and don't try to remove it at all, you can't be held liable if someone slips and falls. If you attempt to remove it and don't do a good enough job, or fail to put down a sufficient quantity of salt, if someone slips and falls, you are liable.

There is an exception to this law, regarding state owned properties. No matter what, the state isn't liable and you can't bring an injury suit against the state, even if they are fully responsible for your injuries. So if you fall down the stairs of the state capital because they didn't put enough salt down (or no salt at all) and sustain serious injuries, you are pretty much screwed because you won't ever get a dime from the state. They won't even cover the cost of a band-aid.

[mouser]

Of all the things i worry about in terms of government overstepping it's bounds, worrying about them shutting down the internet or part of it is not even on my radar.  Any reasonably sized entity/company/group can take down almost any small website at will with a distributed denial of service attack, etc.. and persecuted/underground groups will always be able to pop up somewhere else.

[40hz]

^ But only as long as the backbone is allowed to remain up.

AFAIK, the killswitch is primarily designed to force a shutdown of all the backbone routers.

Take the backbone down and it's back to modems and running Fidonet.    

Hmmm...it's always smart to have a contingency plan.

Maybe resurrecting Fidonet isn't too crazy an idea when you think about it.

------------

note: the old Bell Telephone System had network emergency shutdown/lockout capabilities in place since shortly after the start of the Cold War. It was put there so the President could prevent an enemy from using the phone system in the event of a land invasion. This capability has been a part of the US phone system ever since.

-----------/

@app103
Same situation where I live.

My GF works for the state. People are constantly threatening to sue her agency. Sometimes they even do.

When her agency, or an employee of the agency, gets either a summons, or a subpoena to appear in court, the document is immediately forwarded to the State AG's office.  An attorney from the AG's office will then show up in court the very next day and enter a motion to quash.

In 99.9999% of the cases, the request is granted.

[Carol Haynes]

It would be interesting to know what effect a US kill switch would have on other countries.

OK obviously it won't be possible to connect through US servers or to US websites/email but, aside from those limitations, would the rest of the world be business as usual using alternative routes?

If yes it could have an interesting economic impact on the US!

[40hz]

^Well there's one sure way to find out. All they'd have to do is temporarily block all the US controlled IP address blocks on their main routers and DNS servers to see what happens.

But I'm guessing it would have some major economic 'ramifications' for the rest of the world too.

Might be an interesting experiment.  

Might also be an absolute disaster.  

[zridling]

And yet Finland becomes the first country to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.
http://news.bbc.co.u...hnology/10461048.stm

Go Fins!

[Deozaan]

And yet Finland becomes the first country to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.
http://news.bbc.co.u...hnology/10461048.stm

-zridling (June 30, 2010, 09:50 PM)

I don't think that's a good idea either. IMO, internet access isn't a right to be guaranteed by the government to every citizen just for being alive. All that does is cause the government to tax everyone (whether you use internet or not) so they can provide the service. That's not even going into details of who "owns" the service (government or private sector) and what that might implicate.