OBAMA Can Take Control Of The INTERNET?

i really didn't think it was possible for any one person to control it, is this story just BS or is it legit??





http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/0鈥?/a>OBAMA Can Take Control Of The INTERNET?
It's hard to take a website seriously when it peppers its 'stories' with words like 'libtards'.





The Cnet story is pretty basic. In the case of a national emergency (like another 9/11 or other attack), the president, no matter who he or she may be, can limit internet traffic in the US to only those systems deemed critical. Just like on 9/11, all non-military and non-critical air traffic was grounded. This only affects computers in the US, not the internet at large. It also makes perfect sense. If your infrastructure is under attack, you need a way to isolate it and recover. It's basic disaster recovery planning.OBAMA Can Take Control Of The INTERNET?
The bill exists. But it's not really much different than existing powers the President has. In a state of national emergency, the President has the power to do all sorts of interesting things in the private sector. He or she can nationalize industries, or declare martial law, or even stifle freedom of speech through national security letters (this was popular during the Bush administration).





Also, there are certain private sectors where the government requires government-cerfitied personnel to be employed. A good example is radio communications systems. These require licensed personnel to be on hand at all times during operation [1]. The rationale behind the licensed radio operator system is the same as the proposed internet security licensing. It's to make sure that if something goes wrong on a vital national communications network, that there's someone qualified on hand to take care of the problem.





As for the ';taking control of the internet'; nonsense. It's just that. Nonsense. First of all, a huge part of the internet lies outside the United States. The US government has no jurisdiction over those computers.





The proposed bill (note that this is not yet law) would allow the President to call for the termination of network access for machines that pose a threat to national security. So if North Korea were to hack into a bunch of private sector computers in the US and use them to launch a cyber warfare attack on US government systems, then the government could terminate the network access of the affected systems. These sorts of attacks are very popular in Korea, China, and other far-east nations. While the US has not yet been the victim of such an attack, it's probably only a matter of time. It appears this bill is designed to pre-empt such an attack by putting in security measures to stop it.





The US relies heavily on the internet for commerce and national security. Because it is such a vital part of our national infrastructure, then it only makes sense that the US government have some limited tools to protect the integrity of the very large part of the internet that lies within its boarders.





I'm pretty liberal (a ';libtard'; as the article's author might say). And the reason that I'm not ';up in arms'; is that not all us libtards are completely blind to the prospect of national security. I have no problem with FISA or even with some parts of the Patriot Act. What I do oppose is the abuse of such powers. This seems like a reasonable request for power by the executive branch of the government. I appreciate that it's being discussed and debated during a time of relative peace (not in the wake of a direct attack on our nation, as was the case with the Patriot Act). It's taking the proper steps through the legislative process and makes no attempt to hide what it is.





Maybe it's granting the President too much power. Maybe not. But it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me. In fact, I like the prospect of the President calling up a telco and saying, ';You need to shut down computer X's internet connection,'; then I do the current alternative: Nationalize the telecommunications industry and then order the computer's access terminated. That just seems like overkill, doesn't it?
No he can't, all he can do is shut it down...





So in case of a ';Cyber-Emergency'; he can shut it down.





What a load of Bull ****. The real purpose of this bill is to give the government more power over the people, there is absolutely no practical or strategical purpose for it.





The new bill would give the U.S. Government control of the operating of Internet Service Providers.
I've heard and read about this too.I'm not sure he could actually ';control'; the Internet, maybe nationalize it.Perhaps make it so we could only get propaganda online.You know, like abccbsnbc.





Seriously though, I do think this is a very real possibility.The idea that a large number of people who don't support the Administration could get together and formulate a plan for protest (or something else) is a little more than they are willing to accept.Who knows what could happen.Heck, I had my doubts about the last election, but it went on even though I think the outcome was planned.
its total BS no body has the control of the internet, since the only way to control the internet is control the backbone connection, but even if that was taken down.. local servers would still work.


since he would need to have control over thousands of servers..
the nsa/fbi/local police have been able to do what they want with the internet and phone service for years and years with or without warrant this bill seeks to legalize those illegal actions...democracy or hypocrisy
dude the internet doesnt belong to any1


no1 can shut it down, except the company providing it


but that only shut down people using that company's internet
thats Bullshit, Plain and Simple