About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd like to point out Egyptians are protesting against their dictatorial government and organizing these protests over social networking internet sites. In response the Egyptian government has cut off internet communication in the country.

Post 1

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe a compromise: just the consonants?

On second thought, 99% of 'tweets' would suffer not at all.





With every day that passes, such a switch would be equivalent to an 'economies kill switch.'

For example, the subset of the economies that work via VPN.


This would be an acceleration from the current passive abuse(as a self-subscribed and paid for domestic spy-on-citizens tool)to active abuse.

Our government is already long tied into the backbone at key points, passively collecting, monitoring, analyzing, and storing data on all users of the internet. We have willingly and trustingly self-subscribed to this intelligence collection tool, and self-fund our own monitoring, with the naive belief that what we throw onto the public infrastructure is not public domain.

Public domain is public domain. This is nothing new. The fact of this has been apparent since the 90s, when (effective) encryption software was quietly classified as a 'munition' by our government.

The implication is obvious.

Remember, shutting down the public internet is not the same thing as shutting down crucial government networks. We pay for and maintain an entirely duplicious/independent set of government networks, plural, that are isolated from the public internet.

The public internet is a curious beast. The belief that the public has 'rights' there, as in, any expectation of service or privacy, is curious.

Who is the sheriff that we expect to enforce those 'rights', and who is policing that sheriff?



Post 2

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
National news reported that the move had no effect at all.  Probably just pissed them off even more. 

Now I hear Mubarak has told his cabinet to resign.  As if that'll help.  

Much like the protesters in Iran, some are asking for support from Obama.  Anyone holding their breath for that?  I'm not.



Post 3

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This apparently wouldn't work in the US, even if the legislation passed, which is unlikely (Remember Carnivore?  Key escrow?  National id cards?).  I'm interested to note that Joseph Lieberman, supposed to be a better, more conservative kind of Democrat, authored the bill.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't buy the arguments that it would never happen in America, or that it would be technically difficult. All it takes is the passing of a law and all that takes is progressives + crisis. And when you call it national security you might even get a few conservatives and moderates if it is the right kind of crisis.

The article Peter linked to, who's author said that it would take too many phone calls was naive. The law can just state that if the President declares a code orange (or whatever the new warning code is) that all designated communications centers (as specified by the law) need to go into 'safe' mode. Homeland Security would drive the enforcement and they have enough people to verify compliance and call offenders.

Those of us who are older remember the way the FCC took over local broadcast frequencies at 12 noon on Friday's for a few seconds to broadcast a test signal - cold war preparation stuff in case of a war the federal government could instantly take over all radio and TV broadcast frequencies - and that is more complex than a law that just says, "shut down."

Post 5

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 5:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We'll probably never have a chance to find out directly, but I doubt that what goes for conventional-broadcast stations goes for the internet.  Startup costs and the amount of fixed capital you need are much less, and rogue/underground operations would be correspondingly easier to carry off.  Anyway, attitudes have changed in 60 years.  It would make a good movie or adventure novel.
(Edited by Peter Reidy on 1/28, 5:09pm)


Post 6

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,

Now you can do a rogue (pirate) radio station for less than $1000. But it won't have much of a range. On the other hand, the internet is very centralized in having a fixed backbone that is susceptible and expensive and will only accept input from chosen sources. This is why China can control searches, how Cuba and Korea censor internet use, and how Egypt was able to turn the switches off.

Here in he U.S. we only have about 7 IXPs capable of Internet exchanges at rates greater than 1 gigabyte per second. Not hard to control those. Seven phone calls and most of the U.S. goes dark as far as Internet access goes.

Post 7

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This apparently wouldn't work in the US


Difficult to say. Perhaps someone else on RoR with more knowledge can expound on this, but you simply could have the law mandate all ISPs be routed through a government server, and the government could essentially shut down that server cutting off communication between ISPs (but not within each individual ISP loop). So if you tried to connect to a website on a different ISP you wouldn't be able to. Or, you could just have a 'single-payer ISP' program and then the government just has one ISP to shut down.



Post 8

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I dunno. Its hard for me to believe that AT&T and other satellite companies would just lay down because Obama signed their death warrant, and a kill switch is exactly that.  Not all of them are push overs for that much government. 

And you can bet some MIT smart ass will develop over-ride coding within hours. Hell, Zuckerberg probably has several already scratched out.


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Most corporations these days run to get in front of Obama so they CAN lay down and be walked on. Today's government has hold of them by the two most motivating handles -fear and greed. They wouldn't see a kill switch as a death warrant, just another regulation that will probably never be used and if it is used will only be during a major crisis and for a few hours (that's called rationalization and denial). Please give me the names of all those corporations you can think of that have refused to comply with Homeland Security/Patriot Act regulations? And you can't do code-overrides that have any effect on turning off the electricity to the hardware.

We have to fight the belief that "It can't happen here." Or the belief that it won't get to that point... those beliefs are like paving the road for bad things to happen. Most people still don't believe that Obama is any form of socialist. A great many people still think that our level of government spending is okay or could even go higher.

Post 10

Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good points Steve.

Post 11

Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, Steve, you don't think AT&T can think far enough ahead to see consumers losing all confidence in them?

Post 12

Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa I think most corporations are afraid of the guys with guns, i.e. the government.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

They would see the regulation as affecting their competition as much as it affects them. They would take the position that the industry had no choice and the consumer would know that. They would bargain with the regulators through their lobbyists to get the best deals they could in other areas of regulation in exchange for their cooperation. The biggest outfits would likely ask for more regulations of the kind the reduced competition from newer, smaller outfits.

Here is an example of the kind of thinking that utility-like outfits engage in: One by one many of the land-line phone companies adopted the practice of putting a charge on the bill, in the section consumers associate with taxes, that read "FCC approved regulation compliance charges" (or something like that). It turned out to be just money that went into the phone companies pocket and was totally unrelated to any government fee, regulation, or tax. It was just a way to raise their rates while making it look like the government made them do it.

In California, PacBell, lobbied the state legislature to pass a bill requiring the phone company to collect a fee from all bill payers to cover the cost of providing emergency-level phone service to those too poor to afford it. Not because they were being altruistic, but because they wanted to provide free phone service to the poor (who have the highest frequency of having their service turned off), but they wanted someone else pay them for the service - hence no cost for turning the service off, going through collections, and reconnecting.

Post 14

Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wouldn't hold them innocent, and I wouldn't be alone.

Post 15

Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, congrats: I agree with you!


Of course it can happen here. Did anything think 100 years ago that a black guy with no experience whatsoever could be elected as president just because of the color of his skin? Of course not. Did anyone ever think that Warren G. Harding would ever be resurrected in the form of the George W. Bush administration? No.

We're humans first, and Americans second.

I still have yet to see any proof that the citizens of our country truly desire freedom more than--say--the folks in the UK, or in the Great White North. I just don't buy it.

Post 16

Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 7:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Kay said:
"...a black guy with no experience whatsoever could be elected as president just because of the color of his skin?"
Say what?

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
might want to read this -

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-internet-switch

Post 18

Sunday, January 30, 2011 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been arguing that they CAN set up a 'kill' switch, not that they SHOULD.

Passing that law, and building that switch, would be the stupidest thing anyone ever did - using it would be a disaster.

Post 19

Monday, January 31, 2011 - 6:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn, read my entire post before saying anything........
(Edited by R Kay on 1/31, 6:50pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.