Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.160.221.82

Forum Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Message Too Old, No Replies

Emergency Presidential control of the internet (again?)

     
3:32 am on Jun 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 4, 2001
posts: 1259
votes: 11


This news is about a week old but I couldn't find a previous post about it.

A lot here no doubt remember the attempts to give the US government "kill" power over the internet, there was one in 2008, and again in 2009.

Apparently it's not going away, a newly proposed bill called 'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act' (PCNAA) would:

grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

[news.cnet.com ]

Somehow it's even worse than it's predecessors... It includes not just ISPs and phone companies but potentially any other company remotely involved with the internet:

Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.


It's amazing to me that something like this is even being proposed.
8:35 am on June 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 2, 2010
posts:7
votes: 0


Is there ever much support for these bills?
11:19 am on June 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 12, 2004
posts:120
votes: 3


Censorship is always wrong. A group of people so convinced that their ideas/morals are right that they are prepared to try and force those ideas on others. That's how wars start. People who propose this sort of thing are dangerous and should be removed from power the next time they are up for election.
11:53 am on June 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Aug 12, 2004
posts:1781
votes: 0


'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act'

Protecting it from what? Who defines the threat?

This is absurd.
1:57 pm on June 19, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

joined:Nov 30, 2006
posts:685
votes: 0


Ironic that they think they have to kill it in order to save it.
1:47 am on June 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 4, 2001
posts: 1259
votes: 11


Is there ever much support for these bills?


They've all failed in the past, hopefully this one will not be an exception.
2:31 am on June 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Aug 12, 2004
posts:1781
votes: 0


They've all failed in the past, hopefully this one will not be an exception.

And this one will fail as well. At least I hope it fails.

There's been an increase of government meddling on the internet in the last few years. I thought it was basically limited to collecting taxes.

This is something totally different though, and a bit draconian if you ask me.
4:08 am on June 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

joined:May 31, 2006
posts:1207
votes: 7


Again, the US government is making me happy that I don't live there!
9:02 am on June 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:6130
votes: 277


This news is about a week old but I couldn't find a previous post about it.


Most of these go back to the Clinton era, but some of the newer versions seem to be getting legs. The one we really need to worry about is the FCC seeking to bring the Internet under their Telephony rules. That's the one that will queer everything.
12:13 am on July 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 4, 2001
posts:1259
votes: 11


This bill has been approved by committee and now moves on to the floor.

[news.techworld.com...]
4:10 pm on July 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2006
posts:386
votes: 0


First off, i'm not for this legislation in any way but i think we should all understand that based on history the idea is not that far fetched.

The us interstate highway system (not unlike the internet in concept) was created with the idea of having a transportation system for the army in the event of a war on us soil. if needed access to the interstate system can be, for the most part, restricted to military use only. imagine trying to get on an interstate if the on ramps are blocked.
6:51 pm on July 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum

WebmasterWorld Administrator lawman is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 28, 2001
posts:3519
votes: 25


>> The us interstate highway system (not unlike the internet in concept) was created with the idea of having a transportation system for the army in the event of a war on us soil

The Nation's highway system, he [Eisenhower] said, is "a gigantic enterprise" but "is inadequate for the nation's growing needs." The need for action was inescapable. He cited safety (more than 36,000 killed and a million injured each year on the highways at a cost of more than $4.3 billion a year), the poor physical condition of the roads (translating into higher shipping costs, about $5 billion a year, that are passed on to consumers), the need to evacuate cities in the event of an atomic attack (the present system would be "the breeder of a deadly congestion within hours of an attack"), and the inevitable increase in traffic as the population and the gross national product increased . . .

[fhwa.dot.gov...]
11:56 pm on July 3, 2010 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2006
posts:386
votes: 0


Although the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 added the words “and defense” to the name of the Interstate System (now the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways), the primary justification for the network was its civilian benefits

[fhwa.dot.gov ]


There are specific plans (MOBCON Procedures: Deconflicting Highway Space) in place for the interstate system which if implemented will restrict civilian use of the system when deemed necessary by the government.

still not trying to make a case for the law pertaining to the internet, just pointing out that this is not a new idea.
1:30 am on July 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 12, 2004
posts:120
votes: 3


I am amazed that the USA could have the gross effrontery to assume that the internet is it's property to use and abuse. What sort of people are drafting these laws - they should be in a straight jacket not the legislature.
Don't they realise that the internet is not a province of the USA.
You can do what you like with your interstate highways which as far as I am aware remain within your borders, but please leave our worldwide internet alone.
1:51 am on July 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2006
posts:386
votes: 0


but please leave our worldwide internet alone.


that's funny, not to worry though, if the US ever shuts down our internet the UK can go back to the CERN TCP/IP network which I believe they were on for the most part until 1989 when they decided to join our internet.
2:08 am on July 4, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 4, 2001
posts:1259
votes: 11


What sort of people are drafting these laws

People who don't really understand the technology.

By shutting down access to the internet in a time of crises we would cripple the ability of Americans to communicate.

It's the opposite of a protective measure unless you take the Chinese perspective that the information a population should be exposed to needs to be carefully controlled.