Declan McCullagh on Cnet reports that: “appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.”
Defenders say, what’s the big deal since the president has always had such power?
(Thanks William Butos)
{ 7 comments }
Now all they have to do is plan and stage a “cybersecurity emergency.†I wonder if they will use Islamo-fascists or one of the millions of homegrown-terrorists to take the fall?
I really do hope you’re not a conspiracy nut.
There would never be such a “cybersecurity emergency” for the very fact that the internet is a distributed network. If one ISP were shutdown, another could easily be used. Thus, the President could never seize control over the internet without total cooperation, an impractical endeavor unless the United States were to follow in the footsteps of China, Iran, and other countries that blatantly violate the civil rights of its citizens.
At most, this measure would do nothing but legalize the government to intervene in the event a particular ISP were the source and/or destination of an attack. Otherwise, the massive nature of such a legal process would well outlast the brunt of any “cybersecurity emergency.”
Just another waste of millions of dollars of US tax dollars.
True my friend, there are always more ISP’s. Remember though, businesses, organizations and private individuals require access to other networks via the Telecommunications companies. The regulation would basically give the president power to shut down whole telco’s or force them to block specific area, individual or business access, effectively giving shutdown power over the internet. Sure, hackers will figure a way around it as always, but it would block acces for the average user, which is what really makes the internet what it is.
I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I tend to believe that the push for IPv6 is a conspiracy. The drive to centralize the internet and give a unique logical address to everything on earth, forced from above through regulation, would allow all sorts of nightmare scenarios. I kinda liked the fact that IPv4 failed and had to be patched with NAT in order for it to work. It shows how sucky the government is. The superstates may never regain control over the internet but they sure could make life miserable for us.
“…unless the United States were to follow in the footsteps of China, Iran, and other countries that blatantly violate the civil rights of its citizens.”
Pardon me for asking, but did you just awaken from a coma?
There are not that many upstream providers on the internet. It would be conceivable to shutdown or monitor traffic on all of the BGP routers.
Some big upstream providers are major defense contractors also.
“…unless the United States were to follow in the footsteps of China, Iran, and other countries that blatantly violate the civil rights of its citizens.”
Pardon me for asking, but did you just awaken from a coma?
——————
Thats Exactly what I was thinking when I read that Idiot’s comment
Comments on this entry are closed.