Internet Kill Switch

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

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.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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!!!!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

So, what is the purpose of this bill? What do they intend to prevent/control? They can shut down all the bullshit they want, but they can never stop individuals from using existing hardware, software and communication protocols -- regardless of what they do to ISPs, name servers, or anything else. This would not stop people who understand these relatively simple protocols from using them to communicate between known hosts. A truly ignorant bill, IMO.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So, what is the purpose of this bill? What do they intend to prevent/control? They can shut down all the bullshit they want, but they can never stop individuals from using existing hardware, software and communication protocols -- regardless of what they do to ISPs, name servers, or anything else. This would not stop people who understand these relatively simple protocols from using them to communicate between known hosts. A truly ignorant bill, IMO.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So, what is the purpose of this bill? What do they intend to prevent/control? They can shut down all the bullshit they want, but they can never stop individuals from using existing hardware, software and communication protocols -- regardless of what they do to ISPs, name servers, or anything else. This would not stop people who understand these relatively simple protocols from using them to communicate between known hosts. A truly ignorant bill, IMO.

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

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.



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.

How do you anticipate I'll be able to communicate with my friend 10 miles away? The one in Cali? The one in VA? Give me a run down how it will be possible for a determined individual to communicate in a situation where the internet is shutdown.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by saden1

How do you anticipate I'll be able to communicate with my friend 10 miles away? The one in Cali? The one in VA? Give me a run down how it will be possible for a determined individual to communicate in a situation where the internet is shutdown.

Well, you won't be able to do anything unless you have a connection. However, somebody like China or Russia -- who have satellites -- wouldn't have any trouble communicating, or selling bandwidth to terrorists so they can communicate.

So, I go back to my original question: what is the purpose? Surely it's not to prevent you from communicating with your friends in Cali and VA in the event of an emergency -- but that's probably the only thing it will achieve.

[joethiesmanfan]

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

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 Chicks

Russian 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

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

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