Comments on: In Case of Emergency, Should the White House Control the Internet?

By: Internet “Kill Switch” Efforts In US on Life Support?

Internet “Kill Switch” Efforts In US on Life Support? — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:55:46 +0000

[...] plan about 16 months in the making to give the President powers to shut down the Internet may have just died an early death thanks to the events in Egypt. According to supporters of the [...]

By: JDoors

JDoors — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:11:46 +0000

After reading some of the provisional language in the bill, I retract my “Whatever they need to do” vote. The power it gives the government, in its current form, is absolutely frightening (eg., they have given themselves absolute authority over ANY other laws).

By: NanoGeek

NanoGeek — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:49:37 +0000

I actually do oppose federal control strongly. I would prefer a much smaller government. However, I don’t believe that a bill like this has much of a chance. Hence my (and I assume our) lack of excitment.

If this bill does go through, then I’ll get upset.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:56:56 +0000

The federal government has no authority, and is in fact specifically prohibited from such acts. The fact no one bothers to notice only supports the supposition that no one thinks the government is prohibited from anything.

By: NanoGeek

NanoGeek — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:28:15 +0000

@Anonymous

What do you mean? Can you give us more detail?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:50:52 +0000

I absolutely, without reserve, and literally can not believe how blase you’re all being about this.

By: Evan Kline

Evan Kline — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:53:11 +0000

I can see the need, but this is one of those where the cost is just too high. We’d also be very safe if we had to register our whereabouts with the government at all times, but nobody is going to agree to that.

By: Seumas

Seumas — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:51:38 +0000

Peggy, it doesn’t really matter what domains are owned within the US. If the citizens need to get a message out about what is going on inside our country to the rest of the world, it’s not really relevant whether we can get to google or Amazon.com, as long as we can still actually reach other people other places.

By: Seumas

Seumas — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:49:44 +0000

I still don’t understand the justification for this. The military may have originally developed the internet (ARPAnet) but it does not use the same internet the rest of us do and neither should most non-public-facing government agencies, so there’s really no justification for anyone to control any of it in any form of emergency.

Not to mention, this is a TERRIBLE idea on a civil liberty level. What if we start defining an “emergency” the same way China or Iran do? In this age, a people without a communication line to the rest of the planet is an oppressed people with truly no recourse.

By: NanoGeek

NanoGeek — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:15:50 +0000

@Peggy

You’re right, the United States does hold most of the more important domains.

Re-reading the article, it says that this bill will allow the White House to disconnect private computers from the internet in case of emergency. I still don’t get though what disconnecting every computer accomplish. The government should of course be able to shut down their computers if the need arises, but why do they need to control ours as well?