Internet Kill Switch

Sorry, I missed your proposal for securing the nation's network. I must have been too busy supporting Bush. Que facepalm...

You know me, whatever Lord Obama wants I'm down with it.

One thing about conservatives: they know alot about the past but they have a limited vision of the future, how it works, the new boundaries. They are upset because they are no longer allowed to define the game, the rules, or the players. Remember the 80's when they defined Russian women as not being attractive? What happened when technology and the world advanced to the point we could actually see Russian women? We had been robbed of some of the finest athletic women in the world. We lost a quality in life due to their lies. They use this same definition strategy for everything like a cookie cutter. Example, keep saying communist. That stuff don't work anymore.

One thing about conservatives: they know alot about the past but they have a limited vision of the future, how it works, the new boundaries. They are upset because they are no longer allowed to define the game, the rules, or the players. Remember the 80's when they defined Russian women as not being attractive? What happened when technology and the world advanced to the point we could actually see Russian women? We had been robbed of some of the finest athletic women in the world. We lost a quality in life due to their lies. They use this same definition strategy for everything like a cookie cutter. Example, keep saying communist. That stuff don't work anymore.

Me, I like Russian ChicksRussian Babes(link NSFW probably)

puff puff pass:cool-smil

Trample, I hear what you are saying but no way ya gonna be heard over the left-right argument

Me, I like Russian ChicksRussian Babes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxThsrmQMZw)(link NSFW probably)

puff puff pass:cool-smil

Trample, I hear what you are saying but no way ya gonna be heard over the left-right argument

Yeah I know. For the record, I LOVE SLAVIC CHICKS!

This is a power grab by this administration....oh wait, the last one had a similar plan. Cyber security is a serious issue fellas whether you like it or not...is a kill switch the answer? I don't know but I do know it was for BP's oil spill.What was the Bush Admin plan for this?

I agree 100% Cybersecurity is a serious issue, but as you are well aware, attacks are going on 24/7/365 and have been for quite sometime. Gov't agencies and private enterprise subject to these attacks already have strong security in place (for the most part). Fed control of private networks isn't the answer. The only time this is warranted is if it's provided for by a specific gov't contract supporting critical circuits from a carrier.

What was the Bush Admin plan for this?

I agree 100% Cybersecurity is a serious issue, but as you are well aware, attacks are going on 24/7/365 and have been for quite sometime. Gov't agencies and private enterprise subject to these attacks already have strong security in place (for the most part). Fed control of private networks isn't the answer. The only time this is warranted is if it's provided for by a specific gov't contract supporting critical circuits from a carrier.

It's like the matrix you can't control everybody unless you open yourself to be possibly controlled. It won't matter if you are running everything from a carrier. In order for the carrier to communicate with the rest of the world it has to open the big steel door. Think about the nature of the Internet. Everything will be connected, this will mean you get control or freedom. You can hit and you can be hit.

What was the Bush Admin plan for this?

I agree 100% Cybersecurity is a serious issue, but as you are well aware, attacks are going on 24/7/365 and have been for quite sometime. Gov't agencies and private enterprise subject to these attacks already have strong security in place (for the most part). Fed control of private networks isn't the answer. The only time this is warranted is if it's provided for by a specific gov't contract supporting critical circuits from a carrier.

That's a perception. Actually, there is no security. Like Mc Cain said let's run the economy like Ebay!!! Conservatives are gonna have us so far behind. Not me. Those tea party guys aren't snmart enough to keep me out their bed rooms much less their wallets. LOL!!!!

Without the dns servers, which handle the routing, the internet does not work, known host or not, if they blank the dns caches then unless you have a point to point connection, you aren't communicating.

I am certain it's oversimplification, but honestly, if the government approves this, and forces every provider to have a procedure in place, much like they do with the Emergency Broadcasting System, then they certainly could enforce an internet shutdown.

The DNS servers only resolve IP address to names. DNS is a facade to what is really happening, and certainly not necessary for network communication.

Which brings us to P2P -- the "known host" part I was referring to. All that is needed for P2P connections is a medium and the protocols. The protocols are built into millions of devices around the world. So, as long as you have a connection to your peer and some easy-to-make, easy-to-get, mass-produced devices, then you can still communicate. There are really no fundamental differences between P2P and normal Internet communications. They both generally use the same protocols.

Umm, I imagine routing will be disabled and your requests will be ignored altogether.

Communication can still occur without the ISP -- all they really provide is a gateway to other unknown networks. However, none of that is necessary if you know your host and maintain a physical connection.

To me the biggest hurdle would be the physical connection part, but there are so many ways to connect that the US government doesn't control, that I don't see it being much of a problem for, say, Terrorists.

So, basically all this means is that normal people won't be able to use the Internet if they shut it down. No YouTube. No Warpath. No news (which sadly will be what most people want the Internet for in a time of emergency). Terrorists will have a minor inconvenience. Only the honest people will suffer really. To me, these kinds of proposals only showcase the ignorance of the people behind it. They're trying to legislate something that is clearly beyond their comprehension.

It's like the matrix you can't control everybody unless you open yourself to be possibly controlled. It won't matter if you are running everything from a carrier. In order for the carrier to communicate with the rest of the world it has to open the big steel door. Think about the nature of the Internet. Everything will be connected, this will mean you get control or freedom. You can hit and you can be hit.You need to go back to :cool-smil and let the folks who do this stuff for a living talk about network security.

What was the Bush Admin plan for this?

I agree 100% Cybersecurity is a serious issue, but as you are well aware, attacks are going on 24/7/365 and have been for quite sometime. Gov't agencies and private enterprise subject to these attacks already have strong security in place (for the most part). Fed control of private networks isn't the answer. The only time this is warranted is if it's provided for by a specific gov't contract supporting critical circuits from a carrier.

You can do whatever you want by simply declaring a national emergency (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:5.0.2.2.2&idno=47).