House of ZAN Forum

[Ravage]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

As some of the comments on this story read: "Imagine if this had happened under Bush!"

Regardless the administration, or the merits of this kind of power (there are some advantages, not to outweigh the costs, however), this is just wrong.
I also wonder who decided to affirm that it was to "protect the internet"...WTF? It's not like you can "shut the internet down" or just plain destroy it. They're talking about seizing control of private ISP's, and that's pretty darn scary.

What's more...it in no way benefits the government, or its ability to process information to "protect" private internet usage. The government, including the military, has its own network(s), and operates independently. It's not like the US Navy has Insight. They also have many of the best "hackers" on the payroll already...you're not touching the government network...sorry Hollywood movies.

I'm just afraid that idiotic things like this will fly by unanalyzed by people who willingly buy into the "we need to protect the internet" idea.

Thoughts?

[Dana]

This is something I would expect to be reading about China.

[Grand Master Sef]

just add this onto the GIGANTIC list of our Government (and that's all three branches) trying to grab more and more and more and more power. They wanna run a nannystate and I ain't down with that.

THROW THEM ALL OUT!!!
_________________

[commandertracker]

I saw an article about this the other day and through it read some portions of the bill. From the wording of most of what I read, the bill is designed to give the President authority to shut down network/internet access to federal networks attached to sensitive infrastructure only; for example, shutting down internet/network access to electric utilities (as a frightening aside, apparently critical sectors such as the power grid are networked together and controlled/maintained remotely through the internet these days, how comforting is that?) in the event of an internal or external hacker attack or some such. It seems sensible to craft some sort of defense protocol for something that sensitive, but there are two points on this bill that leave it wide open for future application:

Authority to limit access to or shut down networks/internet is granted solely to the office of the President and enacted at the President's discretion.

The bill gives power to shut down or limit access to two different systems; Federal systems and systems deemed critical to US operation or defense. The glossary of the bill defines systems "critical" to the US in three parts, and the third part includes "federal, state, local, and non-government systems as defined by the President at the President's discretion (re: because s/he says so, no bill/law required.

So in short, while the front of the bill is a reasonable (though non actionable) policy, hidden in the definition of one word in the bill (as defined by the bill) is the sole power of the office of the President to label, at the President's discretion, any internet/ethernet/intranet/other network, as critical to the US government and voila, the President can control access to said system at his/her whim. To give a more ridiculous but possible example; according to the language of this bill, the president could arbitrarily decide that houseofzan.com is a critical US system or is affecting a critical US system and shut down all access to without any reason beyond "just because." May not be the intent of the bill, but it is part of the bill.

Nice piece of work there on attempting to reign in the one uncontrolled source of information left in the country.

As a side note, I do think it is unrealistic to expect this one to make it through.
_________________

[Prometheus]

How does one person take over the world wide web I did not think this possible or am I being a tard?

[Ravage]

China has done it, to certain measure, though I'm not so sure how successful they've actually been in keeping people off particular sites (think MVNC proxy and ZAN...lol...who knows?). Obviously, any web services provided FROM China can be regulated, but for some things it requires outside cooperation, such as Google not providing certain access within China (which Google, amonst others, has indeed agreed to).

That's some good researching there, Todd, not that I'd expect any less. Honestly, I don't know much about how public utilities and such operate via their networks, kinda frightening, really. I DO know that military/intelligence networks are separated, in that they could be cut completely off in an emergency. Purely thinking of this bill as "We're going to take what limited access we allow to certain government services and end it in a national emergency" - it seems not only valid, but common sense.

For very good reason, given today's political climate, I don't think that's what they're saying. However, if such things as utilities CAN be accessed so easily, then perhaps there is justification for something SIMILAR to this to be laid out. For the reasons you described, though, this particular one is rubbish.

[commandertracker]