answered question
2
Votes
Votes
6
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
Should Obama have the power to shut down the Internet?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet
In an interesting and complicated turn of civil liberty events, it looks like the government would like the ability to limit or shut down the Internet during a state of emergency.
Now, without over reacting too much, I'm aware that they already have this ability with the phone (pots) system and have never had a need to use it.
However, the Internet is infinitely more complicated than the phone system. For the most part, the Internet is already controlled by the companies who either provide long haul or backbone infrastructure and the companies who own the routers, dslams, etc that run the interwebs.
Do you think that any one group should be able to control the Internet?
In an interesting and complicated turn of civil liberty events, it looks like the government would like the ability to limit or shut down the Internet during a state of emergency.
Now, without over reacting too much, I'm aware that they already have this ability with the phone (pots) system and have never had a need to use it.
However, the Internet is infinitely more complicated than the phone system. For the most part, the Internet is already controlled by the companies who either provide long haul or backbone infrastructure and the companies who own the routers, dslams, etc that run the interwebs.
Do you think that any one group should be able to control the Internet?
voted interesting: stacy90802, xds
answers (5)
First, I think that it's a horrible idea. The internet is a global network, with many other countries connected to us through it. Many sites are based in the US.
I can only see taking down the internet as causing massive uproar, in the US and internationally.
Second, giving the Secretary of Commerce the ability to monitor all traffic without regard to any law is a huge invasion of privacy.
Third, this line just makes me want to smack my head into a wall: Snowe said..."if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
I know that Senators Rockefeller and Snowe want to try to protect the US, but I feel this is a horribly misguided idea.
I can only see taking down the internet as causing massive uproar, in the US and internationally.
Second, giving the Secretary of Commerce the ability to monitor all traffic without regard to any law is a huge invasion of privacy.
Third, this line just makes me want to smack my head into a wall: Snowe said..."if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
I know that Senators Rockefeller and Snowe want to try to protect the US, but I feel this is a horribly misguided idea.
| Asker's rating: |
voted helpful: stacy90802
I really don't think any one group should have the power to shut down what has become a global entity. During a state of emergency I can not understand how turning off the internet would really be of any benefit considering there would almost always be ways around the "switch" they would throw to turn it off.
How can the US government feel they have the right to turn off internet when doing so would disconnect many other nations as well (since so many major internet players are based in the US, the moment the switch was thrown the internet would become useless in almost every country on Earth)!!
How can the US government feel they have the right to turn off internet when doing so would disconnect many other nations as well (since so many major internet players are based in the US, the moment the switch was thrown the internet would become useless in almost every country on Earth)!!
voted helpful: robbrown
No Obama does not have the powers.
The Internet backbones run on the phone system, which leases the high-speed lines to service providers. Since the phone system is already under government control, then the President already has the power to affect its operations in the event of an emergency.
The Mother Jones article discussing the Rockefeller bill deals directly with the shutdown or isolation of selected pieces of the United States portion of the Internet from the rest of the world, to protect that system from an attack which would cripple the US systems being protected from their attackers.
Since the authority of the US Government does not extend to portions of the Internet outside of the US, then our government will never be the "one group" that will be able to control the Internet.
In general the modern telecommunication protocols were designed to be decentralized, robust, and able to reroute around damaged segments automatically. If one group (The United Nations?) actually gains the power to shut down undersea cables and satellites, the Internet may fragment temporarily but would automatically try and retry to find any available and remaining telecommunications pathways.
It is probably no longer physically or legally possible, nor politically desireable "for one group to *control* the Internet" as a world-wide thing. Even if the UN shut down international links, it would probably never be the case that the UN or any one group would have authority to shut down/ control the entire Internet, which would require the ability to shut down or constrain individual nations' national telephone systems and power grids.
(with no phones and no power, the the Internet becomes unplugged).
But persuasive authority is another and more nuanced incarnation of political authority: In a true emergency, if an authoritative international technical organization made the case to the UN's member states that specific control and/or shutdown actions were in the best interests of those member states and correctly explained the consequences if those measures were not carried out, I could see where global cooperation could be achieved by consensus to achieve a worthwhile goal involving protecting the survivability, integrity and functionality of the global internet.
The Mother Jones article discussing the Rockefeller bill deals directly with the shutdown or isolation of selected pieces of the United States portion of the Internet from the rest of the world, to protect that system from an attack which would cripple the US systems being protected from their attackers.
Since the authority of the US Government does not extend to portions of the Internet outside of the US, then our government will never be the "one group" that will be able to control the Internet.
In general the modern telecommunication protocols were designed to be decentralized, robust, and able to reroute around damaged segments automatically. If one group (The United Nations?) actually gains the power to shut down undersea cables and satellites, the Internet may fragment temporarily but would automatically try and retry to find any available and remaining telecommunications pathways.
It is probably no longer physically or legally possible, nor politically desireable "for one group to *control* the Internet" as a world-wide thing. Even if the UN shut down international links, it would probably never be the case that the UN or any one group would have authority to shut down/ control the entire Internet, which would require the ability to shut down or constrain individual nations' national telephone systems and power grids.
(with no phones and no power, the the Internet becomes unplugged).
But persuasive authority is another and more nuanced incarnation of political authority: In a true emergency, if an authoritative international technical organization made the case to the UN's member states that specific control and/or shutdown actions were in the best interests of those member states and correctly explained the consequences if those measures were not carried out, I could see where global cooperation could be achieved by consensus to achieve a worthwhile goal involving protecting the survivability, integrity and functionality of the global internet.
The nature of the internet is a globally connected network of machines and servers, I'm not quite sure how any country could shut down the entire internet?
If there is a failure in the line, TCP/IP protocols are in place to route traffic around the breakage to ensure that packets still reach their destination. A government could potentially just 'cut the cables' running into the country, however people inside the country would still be able to access files within the country, and vice versa, essentially isolating the one country.
In an emergency, I would also argue that the internet is a useful tool. How many times has Twitter beaten news stations to a particular story? I've lost count....
If there is a failure in the line, TCP/IP protocols are in place to route traffic around the breakage to ensure that packets still reach their destination. A government could potentially just 'cut the cables' running into the country, however people inside the country would still be able to access files within the country, and vice versa, essentially isolating the one country.
In an emergency, I would also argue that the internet is a useful tool. How many times has Twitter beaten news stations to a particular story? I've lost count....
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
