Presidential authority to shut down / seize public internet?

[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

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

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.

[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?

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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

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

WildorpensandstaplegunsAlaska ™

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by sholling

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.

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?

[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.