By FITSNews || U.S. President Barack Obama would be handed the power to shut down the internet for up to four months under the so-called “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act,” although supporters of the controversial legislation say he already has the power to do so.
This bill, however, would give the federal government sweeping authority to close down networks, block traffic and take down specific websites in the case of an “emergency.”
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) told CNN’s Candy Crowley last week.
Really?
Needless to say, this proposed legislation has First Amendment advocates fuming.
From Prison Planet:
… fears surrounding cybersecurity have been hyped to mask the real agenda behind the bill, which is to strangle the runaway growth of alternative and independent media outlets which are exposing government atrocities, cover-ups and cronyism like never before.
Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state.
Previously, Obama’s Federal Trade Commission has floated the idea of a so-called “Drudge tax” on popular alternative news websites as a means of propping up failing mainstream media outlets. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, the public is overwhelmingly opposed to such a scheme – as well as any bailout of the flagging newspaper industry.
WEB EXTRA
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (Open Congress)
By Hmmmmm June 28, 2010 at 9:38 am
Wow Socialists taking aim at the First Amendment – what next??? It’s a slippery slope to chipping at other constitutional rights all in the name of “government security”.
By Ken E June 28, 2010 at 10:02 am
Yeah, uh, Lieberman? He’s not a (D). God knows what he is, but he is not a (D).
By martha June 28, 2010 at 11:11 am
I remember liberals going ape over Bush’s Patriot Act.
Obama extends the Patriot Act and then proposes Internet Disconnects and freedom-loving liberals are silent as tombstones.
No surprises, here.
Gee, what if President Palin disconnects the Daily Kos?
By eggaday June 28, 2010 at 11:42 am
the (un)patriot act was only the beginning. lots of news outlets refuse to print real stories, protecting the powers that be.
now the supreme court goes as far as to protect corrupt politicans.
then obama gets a kill switch because as joe liarman says ‘ china can do it, so we can too’.
nothing good is happening in the United States of America.
only a blind and deaf person is still in denial.
By Henry June 28, 2010 at 11:54 am
This is good fodder for the conspiracy theorists, but this month’s article in The Atlantic about the Conficker virus explains the issue in more detail. Many experts believe that cyber-terrorism is a real threat. Here’s the article; a real eye-opener and kinda scary.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/06/the-enemy-within/8098/
By Just a good ole boy June 28, 2010 at 11:59 am
Another prime example of Obama and the socialist Democrat party’s agenda to re-write the Constitution. The clearist example will come when they take aim at the 2nd amendment and try to repeal/revoke/reword it. Obama and the socialist Democrats fear our most sacred freedoms and will do whatever is necessary to further their ultimate goal of denying this country its basic freedoms.
By sclawboy June 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm
President Palin?
In your (wet) dreams…
Oh, and Sen. Lieberman – aspiring to be like China is probably not a goal of ours. Just a guess.
For the record, I am a liberal Dem and am outraged at and opposed to this proposal.
By Montana Miles June 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDymIhoIU1Q
The above link expresses why I am concerned about the new Internet kill bill just passed giving Obama administration power over the Internet.
This smacks against freedom of speech!
It is time for court action to repeal and remove this law! Contact the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/20100624_joint_cybersec_letter.pdf
By theo June 28, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Well, as long as Communist China Ok’s it then I guess it’s OK with me, right Manchurian Candidate?
By south mauldin June 28, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Henry,
Thanks for a rational response and link.
By Bullhockey June 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm
This article is a little tinfoil-hatted. Let’s say Will for example puts something on his website that Obama doesn’t like. Can Obama just shut his site down under this law? What, if any, safeguards are in place to protect against that? Would it be effective?
What do you expect to happen? Obama’s going to burn down all the private christian schools, and only a ragtag band of bloggers could stop him?
Wolverines!!!
By countryboy June 28, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Hitler, Stalin and every dictator who ever lived would love having that option, if they were alive and in power today.
By hank June 29, 2010 at 7:34 am
Supreme Court nominee Kagan is on record as supporting book-banning.
Hitler, Stalin, and China are cool with that, too.
Does anyone really care where Obama is taking this country?
By Soft Sigh from Hell June 29, 2010 at 9:23 am
What hysterical piffle.
People can’t imagine a dire emergency where unrestricted international communication might need to be halted temporarily?
In both WWI and WWII, amateur (“ham”) radio was halted in the US. It is not hard to guess why. But it is hard to be too harshly critical of it, considering the risks.
It all hinges on the threshold and reasons for invoking.
By theo June 29, 2010 at 10:27 am
SSFH- Did the US ban books during WWI and WWII?
(Kagan is on record as not having any problems with book banning by the US government)
By landgon June 29, 2010 at 11:37 am
Can’t wait for Prez. Palin to ban the LA Times, NY Times, and the Boston Globe and disconnect the Huff Post/Daily Kos!
(it hinges on the reasons for invoking–after all, the Chicago Tribune leaked to the Japanese that the US broke its ENIGMA code…the Japanese did not believe the report as the Japanese couldn’t fathom why a US paper would openly side with the enemy by releasing such classified info which could directly change the course of the war)
By Brandon June 29, 2010 at 11:55 am
A kill switch would not be an effective way to stop internet attacks. When the attacks are noticed it would be too late to do anything about it. Most virus scanners work in user mode, get an infected kernel and there is nothing that any virus protection software can do and they can’t detect virus in kernel mode. Most attackers will not attack until they have all the pieces in the right position like a chess game.
the best defense is having humans monitor networks, and activity of processes going on.
By dirtbogger June 29, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Its not just Obama, so stop blaming him. He is only the spokeperson of the folks who really run the country. McCain would have pulled the same crap. Through out history you only have two classes of people rulers and the ruled. They are only pouring gas on the flames of revolution.
By keylay June 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm
LMAO, Internet Kill Switch? A prohibition of the internet? lulz, its not funny man, give us back our pr0n! What a load of crock.
By Soft Sigh from Hell June 29, 2010 at 5:42 pm
theo, do all subjects on the table aggregate and blend together? Can none be looked at on its own measures?
By Charles July 5, 2010 at 11:40 pm
“China can already do it so we should be able to do it, too.” Oh really, Joe? Now our standard for freedom in this country is whatever the Chinese government can get away with?
If China had the authority to round up millions of people and “relocate” them would you support that, also?
By Ross Wolf July 11, 2010 at 11:35 pm
NSA Illegally Wiretapped Your Phone, Fax and Private Email Communications? Now Your Internet?
In 2008 Telecoms were granted government immunity after they helped U.S. Government spy on millions of Americans’ electronic communications. Since, Government has not disclosed what happened to NSA’s millions of collected emails, faxes and phone call information that belong to U.S. Citizens? Could those wiretaps perhaps illegal, become a problem for some Americans? Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by the government to prosecute Citizens.
In 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in “ordinary” criminal prosecutions. That was shortly after a court case lowered a barrier that prior, blocked prosecutors from using illegal-wire tap evidence in Justice Dept. “Intelligence Files” to prosecute ordinary crimes. It would appear this information, may also be used by government to prosecute civil asset forfeitures.
See: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5452
Considering that court case, it appears NSA can share its electronic-domestic-spying with government contractors and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate the arrest and forfeiture of Americans’ property—-to keep part of the bounty. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax, phone call or web post out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture.
There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. In the U.S., private contractors and their operatives, work so close with police exchanging information, to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police.
Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal and Citizens’ private information U.S. Government agencies glean monitoring the Internet, to arrest Americans and to seize their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police and government contractors become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to pay their salaries and operating costs?
Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses including government contractors can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws: those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “retroactive civil asset forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning “property already tainted by crime” provided “the property” was already part of or “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress” when HR.1658 passed. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.
Alarmingly the Obama Government recently employed a vendor to search Internet social networking sites to collect information about Americans that could potentially be used by this government to injure Americans, for example, if you apply for a federal job, your name might be crossed referenced by the Obama Government with comments you made at Websites against Obama; or if you make application at a bank for a loan the Government has control since the financial crisis, could your Internet comment(s) prevent you getting that loan? Obama’s monitoring of the Internet sites can too easily be used by Government to intimidate Citizens from speaking out.