Presidential authority to shut down / seize public internet?

[jimpeel]

Can't tell if this is Chicken Little or if it is credible posturing. The bill does, indeed, exist; but does it grant the overarching authority the author claims? Having seen other laws taken to their wildest extreme -- Seizure and Forfeiture and RICO would be good examples -- it is not beyond the pale; and assurances that it won't gives little comfort.

It seems that this new bill is in the works; and it takes the place of a former attempt to do this last spring. Who is in office is not the problem. The problem is the content of the bill and the authority it endows on the president, whoever s/he may be. If the power is innocuous then <shrug>. If not ...

The story:

LINK (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html)

The pertinent portion of the bill:

LINK (http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf)

An e-mail from Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee states the following:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

[mrbraff]

Stop that's ridiculous

[tube_ee]

Even if the government took over all of the backbone links here in the US, it would only be a couple of hours before all of the routers updated to go around those nodes.

You can get from anywhere, to anywhere, via any route... some just take longer than others.

Hell, the Iranians couldn't even do this... and they tried pretty hard.

Short of seizing everyone's computer, there's no way to do this. The only way that goverments have been able to deny access to the internet is by controlling the basic hardware.

[OuTcAsT]

I am not an IT guy by profession but have just enough knowledge to be dangerous ;)

While there are some governments that do manage to control the ISP's in their countries, (China springs to mind)
I do not believe that even the US Government has the logistics to make that happen at this stage of the game. (that horse has already left the barn)

The countries that control the internet content their citizens have access to, controlled the infrastructure from the ground up, don't see that being possible from the top down. as I said, the logistics would be impossible.

Also, this bill seems to only be concerned with .gov assets, certainly the "abuse" factor should be carefully considered, but the internet in the US is a monster that is not likely to be caged anytime soon. IMHO

[hogdogs]

I don't put anything past this administration...
The 'net czar could just order the service providers to shut it down.
Don't none of ya'll fergit that Al Gore invented the whole dern thing.
Brent

[OuTcAsT]

Even if the government took over all of the backbone links here in the US, it would only be a couple of hours before all of the routers updated to go around those nodes.

You can get from anywhere, to anywhere, via any route... some just take longer than others.


Exactly. As more "P2P" based networking exists every day, you can literally get to anywhere, from anywhere.

As an analogy, lets suppose the .gov decides to close the US Interstate Highway system, I can still get where I am going...just not on the freeway.

[OuTcAsT]

The 'net czar could just order the service providers to shut it down.
Don't none of ya'll fergit that Al Gore invented the whole dern thing.


He also invented the hole in the ozone layer, and global wa...er, climate change, What a guy !

(I hate to admit we grew up just 20 miles apart, in basically the same community)

[peetzakilla]

The countries that control the internet content their citizens have access to, controlled the infrastructure from the ground up, don't see that being possible from the top down. as I said, the logistics would be impossible.

Bingo. There's your answer.

[Jofaba]

Whatever you may think of the man and what he does, within this venue where facts rein supreme and rumors and exaggerations serve us little purpose beyond patting our own backs, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. He said that he took the initiative of creating the internet. Meaning through his legislative record the internet was allowed to flourish and evolve from a military program to what it is today. A bit of boasting, but he was responding to a question about what's he got to offer us as a president.

That said, what does any of this have to do with firearms?

[sholling]

I have no clue if anyone would ever want to use or abuse such a law but I'll address the technical side. The answer is yes it's quite it's possible to limit internet communication to and between average citizens for the duration of a national emergency. For example if whoever it is wanted to shutdown the vast majority of email, blogs, and unfriendly news websites then all it takes is a visit or a call to a mere handful of ISPs and a few co-location sites. Everyone's web servers are co-located at a mere dozen or so physical sites.

That's the blunt instrument method. But it's also possible to "poison" the top-level domain servers so that non-corporate and non-government email, politically incorrect blog sites, and politically incorrect websites resolve to bogus IP addresses. That effectively selectively shuts them down. This takes time to trickle down, a couple of days at least unless ISPs are instructed to flush their DNS caches - which would reduce the time required to hours. Your attempts to reach hotmail, yahoo mail, rushlimbaugh.com, michellemalkin.com, or foxnews.com (or Glock.com ;)) could be met with "404 page not found".

The technically savvy would eventually be able to access off shore sites but that takes time and does nothing for the vast majority of folks. Yes it's easily doable if you have the power of the government behind you. Stopping massive distributed attacks like they claim to want to do is much much harder. It'll be interesting to see where this bill goes.

Anyway back to jawboning about guns.

[azredhawk44]

As more "P2P" based networking exists every day, you can literally get to anywhere, from anywhere.

Poppycock.

You need central repositories to obtain torrent or other key files for P2P systems to function. You can't just "browse the cloud." Not possible yet.

And... even if you could browse the cloud of P2P clients, you still need a centralized backbone to get there. There are core datalinks in this country that are easily severed. I used to work for a web hosting company in Phoenix... when working from home in a Phoenix suburb, EVERY ONE OF MY DATA PACKETS actually went from my home, to a routing station down the street, all the way back to Los Angeles, then to downtown Phoenix.

Sever that link and all of Arizona (and a good bit of the "flyover" Rockies states) will be severely crippled with regard to internet access.

Frankly, I can think of 3 datacenters I know of in the US that if any 1 of them went down, it would cause immense chaos to the internet backbone of the world.

There probably aren't more than 500 or so core datalinks that if you severed them, the internet would be devastatingly impossible to navigate even for trained professionals with no need for name resolution or search engine use.

I think that if you could come up with a replacement for IP addressing that included geographical location info (GPS lat/long coupled with IP, perhaps) and increased the broadcast strength of the 802.11 protocols, you could hash out a new form of wireless web, but routing would require some insane computations and LOTS of hops, and name resolution would be extremely difficult.

On a separate but related note... if a critical national security asset is located on the public internet: TAKE IT OFF! There is zero reason to have nuclear control systems on the same network that I use to download music. It's very easy to set up private intranets that have no physical link at all to the internet. Given the satellite and radio assets our government has, it should be simple.

There's no reason to EVER shut down the greatest communication medium the world has ever seen... unless it's to shut up the people themselves.

[mrbraff]

yeah right - I agree

[Te Anau]

There's no reason to EVER shut down the greatest communication medium the world has ever seen... unless it's to shut up the people themselves.
That's what Pelosi would like to do. This Democrat regime we are living under is all about control, and regardless of whether or not they can totally succeed at doing anything to ruin our lives,they will continue to try. :mad:

[hogdogs]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif
Brent

[Te Anau]

There we go with the flagging. :cool:

[44 AMP]

And some people are not playing by the rules.
Closed.

[44 AMP]

The thread is reopened.

I believe the issue of the government seizing control of the Internet during "an emergency" has serious First Amendment bearing, and rightfully belongs in the CR portion of our forum. IF the discussion can be focused on that issue, and not wander off into endless repetition of how much and how strongly we dislike the people involved.

The high road is narrow. Lets keep it between the ditches people. Posts containing language outside of L&CR Forum rules will not be tolerated, and that includes how you say things, not just what you say. If you aren't sure, read the sticky. If you are still in doubt, ask the mods.

Now, how do we balance the govenment's valid authority to control industries vital to "national security" against "Congress shall make no law....freedom of the press....."?

There is, after all, technically, a war on. During WWII, govt controlled in direct fashion many industries deemed "vital to the war effort". Nobody batted an eye, or if they did, it came to naught.

We are not in the same situation today, and are very unlikely to ever be in that same situation again. However, the precedent is set. That will not be changed. What we have to determine is what limits a free people will set upon government power at what level of emergency.

After Katrina, officials took firearms from citizens in New Orleans, even though the law did not give them that authority. Because their boss told them to. End result, after years of legal wrangling, laws were passed specifically prohibiting these kinds of actions during specified emergancies.

Unless we get something in law, specifically limiting the governments authority to "take over" the Internet, and at what level of emergency they are allowed to do this, if they are at all, they will gladly take as much power as they can get, and use it at the lowest level of provocation practical.

Anything less than that is an insupportable idea to me. Leaving out the technical issues of "can it be done", the legal and moral issues of "should it be done, and if so, when?" are the overridding priorities. Because if they claim, and are allowed, the authority to do it, eventually they will find a way to do it.

We cannot allow them to sneak this in while everyone if focused on health care, because if they do, we lose more than we can afford.

Your thoughts?

[Crosshair]

I work for a local company that does allot of telephone work around several states.

The problem with things like this is it is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The Chinese economy has developed, for better or worse, around the restrictions on the local internet. The US economy has not. If you want to see the economy take a nosedive, just have them pull something like this.

At least where I work, this would shut down our remote monitoring and remote system administration for several hundred computers. I'd be spending my days running around diagnosing system trouble on site instead of the office people doing that and my going and installing upgrading systems.

With such actions, companies will start sending people home since there is no work for them to do or when the work they can do runs out. So we now have even more people who are not getting paid because of the government and have nothing better to do. Hmmmmm. I wonder what is going to happen?

Also, the internet does NOT have the redundancy that people think it does. When first envisioned by the military yes, but across much of the US, as you get close to the end user especially, this redundancy is absent as it is economically not viable.

[jimpeel]

I am glad that most, here, are thinking the way I was hoping. I was thinking about how they could do this, as one poster so aptly put it, from the top down.

I like the analogy of the interstate highway system and how one may still get from point A to point B without it. However ... the interstate highway system was not designed as a public way. It was designed as a military asset for any possible assault on the country and is literally on loan to the states. It was designed for the movement of men and materiel. It can be closed at any time there is a national emergency, such as invasion, as it was intended and designed. Many people who were not alive at the time of the building of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System are unaware that the specifications of the system included that one mile in every five miles must be a straight line for the launching and landing of aircraft.

The Internet, however, is not even close to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, although the analogy is sound. Just as pirate radio, CB and ham radio, shortwave, microstations, et al, have always been used outside of government regulation, the Internet would simply become cellular based on a small scale communicating in the ether. Any attempts to stop it would simply be circumvented.

It seems that Washington now runs more on Senate and House rules which have endowed them with greater and greater power; and the Constitutional authority granted by the Constitution is being expanded extra-constitutionally. The Congress has granted more and more law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats through granted power to create regulations -- which are law.

When it comes to freedom, the free will always find a way; and the non-free will seek them out and join them.

[OuTcAsT]

Just as pirate radio, CB and ham radio, shortwave, microstations, et al, have always been used outside of government regulation, the Internet would simply become cellular based on a small scale communicating in the ether. Any attempts to stop it would simply be circumvented.


When it comes to freedom, the free will always find a way; and the non-free will seek them out and join them.


Bingo!

Poppycock.

You need central repositories to obtain torrent or other key files for P2P systems to function. You can't just "browse the cloud." Not possible yet.

Perhaps there is some "old school" technology you might want to look into, "packets" of info do not have to travel over a wire to be transmitted effectively.

It's very easy to set up private intranets that have no physical link at all to the internet.

Indeed, it is. ;) As an aside, when I mentioned;

I am not an IT guy by profession

Does not mean I am ignorant on the subject, merely that I no longer make my living at it. ;)

On a separate but related note... if a critical national security asset is located on the public internet: TAKE IT OFF! There is zero reason to have nuclear control systems on the same network that I use to download music.

You may rest assured that this is not the security issue .gov has, but that is the way they wish it to "appear".

The "security issue" is freedom of thought and expression and, communication within that realm.

(read my first sig line for a clue) The very discussion we are having, and the relative ease with which we can have it, is a shining example of what is likely a "security issue".

[OuTcAsT]

double-tap

[sholling]

As I said before (I am an IT guy) shutting down the Internet as a whole is easy and so is selectively shutting down opposition websites and blogs. That's just a matter of instructing the dozen or so co-location sites to pull the plug (physically or electronically) on offending sites/servers. Or of rerouting attempts to reach opposition sites to a "server down" page. It's a no-brainer if you have the power.

Email is just a matter of either blocking port 25 (all email server to email server traffic) at the routers, or selectively shutting down non-corporate and governmental email servers. Shutting down yahoo mail and hotmail servers would take no time and shut down 80% of personal email. A call to ISPs and colleges would finish the rest.

Almost none of the above would have a major effect on non-Internet business and could be maintained for many-many months if not years. Yes a savvy few would get around it but that would effective eliminate organized mass protests and opposition. Your news sources would become limited to the mainstream media.

Should the government have the legal authority to shut down any part of the Internet? No way!!! There is zero legitimate need for them to do so. None what so ever. Instead they should mandate that no critical systems (power grid etc) be connected to the Internet. There is simply no excuse for having critical systems exposed to the net.

[OuTcAsT]

Almost none of the above would have a major effect on non-Internet business

Problem is, almost ALL retail business operates with internet or satellite uplinks to credit card companies, banks, distribution centers, basically shutting down the internet would economically halt almost all business except on a cash basis. Then there is the telecommunications industries, energy management systems, etc.

There is , effectively, little non-internet business left.

The effects would be immeasurable, and, I would think, cause an already volatile public, to have the opposite reaction of the intended purpose.

Yes a savvy few would get around it but that would effective eliminate organized mass protests and opposition. Your news sources would become limited to the mainstream media.

There may be more than a "savvy few" who could still communicate within limited areas, and; Old Age and Treachery...

After reading this thread, I have done a bit of research on the net, and we are not the only ones who see the possibilities of this going badly, but it does bear continuing to inform and educate, and remain vigilant.

[sholling]

Problem is, almost ALL retail business operates with internet or satellite uplinks to credit card companies, banks, distribution centers, basically shutting down the internet would economically halt almost all business except on a cash basis. Then there is the telecommunications industries, energy management systems, etc.That's why it would be smart to selectively shutdown non-corporate email and opposition websites instead of the whole Internet. That would massively disorganize any opposition. "Just for the duration of the emergency" of course. 1/3 of people would seethe, 1/3 would say it's justified for the duration of the "emergency", and the 1/3 that make up the faithful would cheer the government shuttering opposition sites.

There may be more than a "savvy few" who could still communicate within limited areasNot enough to organize or publicize mass protests. You might get demonstrations at a college or two but nobody will hear about it. Not with the media refusing to report it. We face a situation that is not unlike the old Soviet Union in that the media has become little more than a propaganda arm for the government and that government is now reaching to take control of the only remaining methods of informing the public of what is going on around them.

[AmmoSphere]

Talk about big brother...:confused:

[Crosshair]

That's why it would be smart to selectively shutdown non-corporate email and opposition websites instead of the whole Internet.
Except what about when corporate websites and email accounts start to be used by the opposition? My boss would be rewriting the company website himself if he had to he knows lots of like minded individuals and communicates with them via their corporate email accounts already. Thus they would have to either go through every web page individually or shut everything down.

They would be able to pull this off short term, but not long term without serious problems.

[csmsss]

It is a mistake to assume that Big Brother would not also be prepared to impose a virtual freeze on commerce should he/she decide to invoke this authority to block the internet. In fact, I would argue that the two would run parallel to achieve a shared objective - to paralyze the nation, to sow fear, confusion and uncertainty, and to provide a singular path to "salvation" - through Big Brother, of course. Therefore, any argument that commercial disruptions would trump such a thing from happening is a non-starter, at least in my opinion.

[sholling]

People know to look on fox or newsbusters, or Rush's site for news of what's really going on, or for where the TEA parties will be held. If those are down and and non-corporate email is down how will people know to look on specific corporate websites for news or TEA Party dates? How long do you think corporate sites would be allowed to remain up? There would be plenty of the "faithful" reporting anyone spreading bad thoughts and not many corporations will risk the company site to spread the word. Trust me there is plenty of time right now to make white lists and black lists of sites that should be shut down in the event of an "emergency" and what sites should remain up if everything else is blocked.

But don't doubt that someone up to their neck in political hot water wouldn't use a "national emergency" to shut down protests. Or that they couldn't easily shutdown all but the sites of political allies. Then over time they could allow politically reliable commerce and corporate sites and email to come back on line. "Abuse" your corporate website or corporate email privileges and they go away. The politically co-opted media would happily play ball.

[MLeake]

... it's less likely that "Big Brother" would shut down the internet, than that "Big Brother" would start a war.

That's a tried and true method for empowerment of the regime, based on the histories of most nations.

[csmsss]

... it's less likely that "Big Brother" would shut down the internet, than that "Big Brother" would start a war.

That's a tried and true method for empowerment of the regime, based on the histories of most nations. Well, that presupposes an external enemy. What if Big Brother views its biggest enemy as lying within its own borders?

[OuTcAsT]

What if Big Brother views its biggest enemy as lying within its own borders?

Then "Big Brother", if he acts according to that view, may begin a self-fulfilling prophecy, and he may not be prepared for the outcome.

[Wildalaska]

You dont need the internet to fight a government.

Ask Czar Nicholas

WildaslongasthereispaperAlaska TM

[sholling]

Getting back to the subject at hand I think we should all be writing our congress critters and telling them to nip this in the bud.

[Crosshair]

There would be plenty of the "faithful" reporting anyone spreading bad thoughts and not many corporations will risk the company site to spread the word.
Mine would. If they shut us down, and in turn shut down the computers at our clients sites, then lets just say that things would soon get VERY interesting across the 5 states we service.

[MLeake]

Well, that presupposes an external enemy. What if Big Brother views its biggest enemy as lying within its own borders?

That doesn't take away from my original statement. For the last several centuries, regimes have often dealt with internal dissent by creating an international crisis with a neighboring state. This allows the regime to do several things:

1) Take attention away from the ineptitude, corruption, or what have you that riled up the governed with the government, and deflect it toward an external "enemy."

2) Attempt to build up a strong, pro-nationalist movement.

3) Use martial law to crack down on dissenters.

These steps have often, but not always, been followed by attacks on the "enemy" state. Such attacks could have been justified by actual or manufactured offenses by the "enemy."

If all goes well, such a war:

1) Adds territory, and possibly adds funds to the treasury.

2) Makes the government look competent; after all, they won the war.

3) Builds a high level of nationalist, pro-government fervor.

For possible examples of where this could happen next, watch the governments of Iran, Venezuela, and Honduras.

[jimpeel]

MLeake said:

... it's less likely that "Big Brother" would shut down the internet, than that "Big Brother" would start a war.

In Orwell's book "1984" Big Brother [I]was[I] the Internet; and war was the daily drumbeat as Oceania was allied with Eastasia in a lingering war against Eurasia. As I recall, the "war" was false and Big Brother actually ruled dictatorially over all three countries.

[Nnobby45]

Too much of a political rant and attempting to avoid the language filter. Let's stay on topic.

[OuTcAsT]

Getting back to the subject at hand I think we should all be writing our congress critters and telling them to nip this in the bud.


There's the answer, Tell our "representatives" how we feel about an issue, that will get their attention !

Look how effective it's been on other current issues :rolleyes:

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There's the answer, Tell our "representatives" how we feel about an issue, that will get their attention ! Look how effective it's been on other current issues :rolleyes:

What other option would you recommend then?

[MLeake]

Look at what Russia did in August 2008 vs Georgia.

This served two purposes: It distracted dissent at home, and served notice on Europe that the big bad bear hadn't lost all its claws and teeth.

With all the saber rattling Russia was doing this July and August, I was afraid we were going to see a redux.

Or look at what's going on to this day in Chechnya.

Governments traditionally use military or paramilitary actions for reasons that go way beyond the stated objective; I think this will always trump manipulation of the internet, because quite frankly it's probably easier to do.

[sholling]

There's the answer, Tell our "representatives" how we feel about an issue, that will get their attention !

Look how effective it's been on other current issues :rolleyes:
Making our voices heard has put the brakes on socializing medicine so it obviously can and does work. So will voting in 2010. Yes there will be vote fraud from the left but we can overwhelm them with legitimate votes.

The critical thing is to stay peaceful and work within the law. The one thing that will for sure trigger a new wave of gun grabbing and likely trigger shutting down free speech is violence. Some fool pulling a McVeigh is all the excuse that they need to bring back the AWB and shut down talk radio for spreading "hate". My feeling is that they are counting on there being at least one person just stupid enough to give them the excuse that they need. Don't be that fool.

[OuTcAsT]

What other option would you recommend then?

Honestly neighbor? I don't know, while this is partially true;

Making our voices heard has put the brakes on socializing medicine so it obviously can and does work.

And we seem to have "tapped" the brakes a bit, the train is still in motion.

So will voting in 2010

While I agree that voting is the best way to make our voices heard clearly, my biggest concern is the cow may have left the barn before then. And legislation such as we are discussing now, will be law before then.

Directed at sholling:

I am not sure what you are implying by this;

Some fool pulling a McVeigh is all the excuse that they need to bring back the AWB and shut down talk radio for spreading "hate". My feeling is that they are counting on there being at least one person just stupid enough to give them the excuse that they need. Don't be that fool.

But the report post button has been pressed.

[sholling]

Thin skinned aren't we. You just happened to be the one that stated that complaining to our representatives doesn't do any good. My response to your statement was meant to say that none of us should be the fool that pulls a McVeigh - not you specifically.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Honestly neighbor? I don't know,

I cannot envision any scenario within the realm of reason where the government of the United States would attempt to shutdown the public use of the internet.

One, I don't think it would be possible to do completely, (I am an IT person) and two, it would shutdown our economy if they could and did do it.

I do think their is a real threat from hostile foreign powers to the Internet and that our government should take steps to protect it but the idea that some would be tyrant would do it is IMO beyond the pale.

Remember, vote and the choice is yours, don't vote and the choice is theirs. :cool:

[CortJestir]

The pertinent part of the bill is very ambiguous (probably intentional) and so it's too tough to judge what powers the WH will have over the Internet.

My how much things change with a new administration - or rather I should say, how much things don't change. I read the article and the bill and it smelled an awful lot like the Patriot Act. After all, this is all done to help secure America and in the name of National Security, isn't it? Trample on rights and destroy civil liberties but wrap it up in an American Flag and it's all good, right? :rolleyes:

People know to look on fox or newsbusters, or Rush's site for news of what's really going on, or for where the TEA parties will be held. If those are down and and non-corporate email is down how will people know to look on specific corporate websites for news or TEA Party dates?

You dont need the internet to fight a government.

Ask Czar Nicholas

Or Paul Revere, William Dawes, Dr. Samuel Prescott or the dozens of other riders who helped muster nearly 16,000 people in 24 hours - without television, telephone, telegraph, and certainly without FOX news or the Internet.

Getting back to the subject at hand I think we should all be writing our congress critters and telling them to nip this in the bud.

Now this is something we can all agree on. If you'd rather not have this stinking piece of...legislation...make it out of committee, get off the keyboard and find something to write on. I've got my pen and paper out as I type this. That's right - pen and paper. Write an analog letter to your congressmen - it shows you took the time to actually write something, put it an envelope, stamp it and put it into a mailbox.

ETA: Oh, and one more thing: If you care about freedom in the digital age, join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/). And now I'm off to take my own advice...

[sholling]

Or Paul Revere, William Dawes, Dr. Samuel Prescott or the dozens of other riders who helped muster nearly 16,000 people in 24 hours - without television, telephone, telegraph, and certainly without FOX news or the Internet.
The country is a bit bigger than the greater Boston Area and an organized militia was waiting for word of the British via a prearranged method of communication. If the mainstream media only reports the official government line and the web and email are down, and talk radio has been replaced by public radio there simply is no way to spread news far enough and fast enough. It was only the use of the web and email that allowed the TEA parties to get rolling. Fox and talk radio jumped on the boat late.

[Wildalaska]

The country is a bit bigger than the greater Boston Area and an organized militia was waiting for word of the British via a prearranged method of communication. If the mainstream media only reports the official government line and the web and email are down, and talk radio has been replaced by public radio there simply is no way to spread news far enough and fast enough. It was only the use of the web and email that allowed the TEA parties to get rolling. Fox and talk radio jumped on the boat late.

Yeah well 1917 Russia was a lot bigger than the greater Boston area:rolleyes:

I'd be more worried about BB seizing Xerox machines.

WildorpensandstaplegunsAlaska ™

[Tennessee Gentleman]

there simply is no way to spread news far enough and fast enough.

Just turn off public internet access for half a day and see the result.:eek:

Public spontaneous political combustion. No way that would pass or stand.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Becoming a little too conspiracy minded and political for me. Let's stop planning the revolution, claiming that party X or Y has evil plans or some blowhard on talk radio tells it like it is.

Back to the theoretical issue, can we? :cool:

[sholling]

Just turn off public internet access for half a day and see the result.

Public spontaneous political combustion. No way that would pass or stand.
I think I covered that. In the event of an assassination attempt and/or one or more McVeigh type bombing and the mainstream media crowing that right wing radical militias were using the Internet to coordinate domestic terrorism. Shuttering email and the web...
"Just for the duration of the emergency" of course. 1/3 of people would seethe, 1/3 would say it's justified for the duration of the "emergency", and the 1/3 that make up the faithful would cheer the government shuttering opposition sites.
Remember traditional media (newspapers and TV) would be acting as cheerleaders for this action and stirring the public into a panic. The web has been killing off newspapers for years and you can bet they would think a 6 month shutdown of the web would be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The 1/3 upset by this have grown to rely on email and blogs for coordination. The TEA party movement is a great example. They would seethe but be ignored by the media. Anyone turning to violence would just give the government an excuse to extend the "emergency" restrictions.

[Al Norris]

Let's see... TEOTWAWKI; Skirting the language filters; Invectives; Politics; general rants ....

Nope. This one has played out.