# Extremely dangerous



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So what's an emergency, me maybe? This could destroy the ability to communicate quickly. Much of todays communication is by the internet. They are trying to control talk radio, and now an excuse to control the internet? Not good.

For the full story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html



> Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
> 
> by Declan McCullagh
> Yahoo! BuzzInternet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
> ...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i can just see the riots in the streets now...if they keep pushing, this place will look like Iran! oh and who was it that said Obama didn't compare to Hitler??  he is getting damn close in my book, it will only take one excuse to censor free speech or freedom to protect oneself.... :evil:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

You're in over your heads boys...

you might consider stopping now before you look foolish... :eyeroll:

This has nothing to do with Free Speech. It has to do with something you aren't being told about relative to a virus spreading out of control. It is standard procedure at large companies like Microsoft to pull the plug on certain servers until a rampant virus can be quarantined, analyzed, and addressed, before it does irrecoverable damage to major key backbone components of the root DNS Servers, etc etc.. (e.g, THE INTERNET). Major companies have emergency "pull the plug" protocols to be followed when something similar occurs. It is the only way to stop a malicious virus from propagating itsself 10,000 times a minute during a major outbreak. The exponential doubling power of such a scenario would grind the internet to a halt for days or weeks, causing a major world collapse.

It is pre-cautionary, and we need a central authority to make the call to suspend a wildfire scenario temporarily. The bill is likely addressing such a scenario.

Has there been any breakdown of the particulars of the bill?

Would you rather someone like Bill Gates have authority to make that 
call?

Without googling it... do any of you know what conficker is? Anyone?

:eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I know it's intent Ryan, and I agree with it, but I would like to see it in the hands of someone other than Obama. Obama said he would bring people together, but no one has divided us more. I don't trust him, and millions feel the same way I do. 
I agree with the idea, but ya, I would rather Bill Gates had control over it. Actually, I trust the military and would rather the Pentagon had control over it. 
Ryan, I understand you work with computers. I trust your judgement on computers. Computers are not what I am worried about, it's Obama. I don't think you have a realistic view of Obama at all. I'll test that:
Is this the change you expected?
Is this the change you wanted?
Do you still trust Obama?
Who would you want in charge of this?
Do you think Obama is the most knowledgeable in this field?
We know the answer to that don't we?
If he isn't the most knowledgeable why should he be in charge?
Do you think any politician should be in charge? 
Do you think this could be used by the unscrupulous to cut communications of citizens, or the ability to organize, who disagree with a particular politician or politicians policy?



> You're in over your heads boys...


We are not questioning the wise idea of stopping a virus, we are questioning possible political motives, so you see Ryan we are not in over our head. Perhaps this is over your head.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> Without googling it... do any of you know what conficker is? Anyone?


Yeah, it's a nasty little worm that gets in your system and screws everything up. In laymans terms of course.

My new laptop started having problems in Jan. updates wouldn't work, virus protection wouldn't work, got to the point I couldn't use windows explorer. After hours on the phone with techies they decided I must have conficker B, the solution, reformat the harddrive completely, wipe it clean and reinstall everything. Lost quite a few photos, and some other info, had most of the real important stuff backed up. Still not sure if that is what happened, but the solution worked.

I agree, we need a central authority to deal with situations like this, but I don't think Obama, or any politician for that matter is qualified.

huntin1


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

damn, hold it down guys, the next thing you know Obama will have an internet security czar!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

huntin1 said:


> > Without googling it... do any of you know what conficker is? Anyone?
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's a nasty little worm that gets in your system and screws everything up. In laymans terms of course.
> ...


imo one branch cannot have control over this. Any unplugging or switch flipping should be done only with congressional approval. No unilateral power should be wielded to any branch, especially the ones we have now


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Anybody remember how many problems and crashes the NICS system had when Holder was in charge under Clinton? The problems that seemed to magically vanish after Bush was elected?

How much do you wanna bet that the internet will have security problems several times near election time? Maybe the net will go down for 3-4 days following a debate?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

A little glimpse into what Conficker is.. and what you don't realize .. is that you aren't being told everything...

Consider it an ongoing high level covert investigation... But what we do know should scare the bejeezus out of you..

Read this article that came out just this week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/techn ... ss&emc=rss

Consider that the top minds in the world are working on this, including a contingent from Microsoft. Consider that it was written in C# design styles, that were just invented days before Conficker had a code change using that very coding method. The team doing the hacking is top notch, considered as good (or better) than those working at fixing it. Consider that to know, understand, and then utilize that new method, _and_ figure out a way to immediately use the exploit to morph conficker is damn revealing.

Scary stuff.

Now consider that the press isn't even told the full story, as the real story is top secret. It is much much worse.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Seems to me the private companies already pull the plug as needed. Why would the president need such power if that is already the case?

Only one reason, control the flow of information.

Those who will sacrifice security for freedom end up with neither!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I know it's intent Ryan, and I agree with it, but I would like to see it in the hands of someone other than Obama. Obama said he would bring people together, but no one has divided us more. I don't trust him, and millions feel the same way I do.
> I agree with the idea, but ya, I would rather Bill Gates had control over it. Actually, I trust the military and would rather the Pentagon had control over it.
> Ryan, I understand you work with computers. I trust your judgement on computers. Computers are not what I am worried about, it's Obama. I don't think you have a realistic view of Obama at all. I'll test that:
> Is this the change you expected?
> ...


I agree that if enacted would need more oversight. I think the Senate Intelligence Committee made up of bipartisan Senators have oversight of that law, but ultimately one person needs to make a split second decision. So the question becomes... when seconds or minutes count, who is always at the tip of the spear and on top of all incidents in the world? It would have to be someone very high up, who is constantly connected.

I understand you might think this is political. But these contingencies were started before Obama. It is only recently with Conficker that we have realized how advanced and problematic these zombie attacks might be to happening sooner rather than later.

Heck I'm fine with the Joint Chiefs having control over it, provided it had Congressional oversight within 1 hour of being invoked.

Remember we are talking about an apocolyptic style event here... not something you do except in very extreme circumstances.

I don't see this as having political motives, and believe that to be very threatening to our national security frankly. The "in over your head" comment was in reference to not understanding the full scope of issue in regards to internet threats, and the measures being considered to overcome them. And yes.. you can be concerned about political motives, and still not "get it" regarding this... because if you did, you'd realize how silly this is.. Obama already has the codes to launch the nukes. This scenario planning and the proposed bill have to do with something quite similar but rather dealing with the internet backbone.

To freak out about this, and ***** and moan about the power we place in our executive to control the "button" on nukes, is the very same power we place in him to control the "button" on the internet.

:eyeroll:

Everyone can go take a deep breath now...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

southdakbearfan said:


> Seems to me the private companies already pull the plug as needed. Why would the president need such power if that is already the case?
> 
> Only one reason, control the flow of information.
> 
> Those who will sacrifice security for freedom end up with neither!


*sigh*

You aren't getting it SDBearfan.

The "pulling the plug" is on the root DNS servers that control the very traffic of the internet. Private companies can only shut down what they control. They can't shut down the Highway, only their vehicles on it.

This shuts down the highway.

:eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan this is definitely your area of expertise and I for one accept your analysis of it however

the quote by Steele on the bottom of your posts sums up how everyone following govt for the last 20-40 years feels... me included

and the current bunch in congress on both sides are really rotten so its hard to accept anything out of Washington


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan we do get it much more than you realize! Just like we get the fact that the current health bill wipes out almost all of the privacy laws regarding income for any person in the US. It is why portions of the Patriot Act where abused, because like anything until they go over the limit nobody pays attention!!!!!

Sorry Ryan, this is a NO GO! Without a hard protocol for its use which this bill does not have, at least the 55 pages posted by NewsCorp it leaves that to be the judgment of an as of yet undetermined panel!!!!

The premise you discuss for the use is not what is in question. The use is of power and who decides what is an emergency is!!!!!!!!

Take a deep breath head back to the fridge and refill your glass!!! You are so much more entertaining when full of Kool Aid!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Ryan this is definitely your area of expertise and I for one accept your analysis of it however
> 
> the quote by Steele on the bottom of your posts sums up how everyone following govt for the last 20-40 years feels... me included
> 
> and the current bunch in congress on both sides are really rotten so its hard to accept anything out of Washington


I understand Bob. It makes sense. I would be skeptical too based on all the "change" being shoved down the American people's throats...

I should expand on Plainsman's post a bit more... to explain how a non political internet group has already been established to address these National Internet concerns...

I have to find the sources and what not... and football is on right now..


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> It is why portions of the Patriot Act where abused, because like anything until they go over the limit nobody pays attention!!!!!


I agree



Ron Gilmore said:


> Sorry Ryan, this is a NO GO! Without a hard protocol for its use which this bill does not have, at least the 55 pages posted by NewsCorp it leaves that to be the judgment of an as of yet undetermined panel!!!!
> 
> The premise you discuss for the use is not what is in question. The use is of power and who decides what is an emergency is!!!!!!!!


Like I said earlier Ron, if the above is true, than I too have a problem with it. I wasn't sure about the details of who makes the judgement call, hence why I asked in my reply to Plainsman if it was outlined.

I cannot imagine the bill wouldn't have a group who were internet security experts as a part of the early warning panel. In fact I'm certain that NSA has an entire security program dedicated to cyber warfare, as they are part of the working group watching Conficker.



Ron Gilmore said:


> Take a deep breath head back to the fridge and refill your glass!!! You are so much more entertaining when full of Kool Aid!!!!!


We wouldn't want that now would we? Someone has to get you fired up and motivated to post!


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

R y a n said:


> southdakbearfan said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me the private companies already pull the plug as needed. Why would the president need such power if that is already the case?
> ...


I understand it perfectly well, and the whole "trust me" BS from politicians doesn't hold a lot of water. A heck of a lot of questions need to be answered before anything like this needs to ever be considered, mainly, who has control.

Which answering any questions with real thoughts and facts seem to be a real problem for this administation and congress.

IMO, this is a setup to control information in its current form.

Remember this is from the crowd that has been labeling all protestors of their health care bill as Nazi's and the like. Wouldn't be much of a push to start shutting down any information critical of them and their bills, as they might pose a "threat".


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

we saw the Internet and cell phone connections basically shut down by the barbarians in Iran, so no stretch that the high tech. capabilities of this government could easily do the same under a "declared emergency" in this country. once the flow of info is curtailed, organizing a response to a government "event" is impossible. folks are figuring this all out right now, this government can no longer be trusted.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

hunter9494 said:


> damn, hold it down guys, the next thing you know Obama will have an internet security czar!


You have it all summed up in this post hunter. I would expect another illegal czar. Who approved these guys, who pays their salary, where is there role spelled out in the constitution. There really is no cabinet. They are just a facade, and the real power is with the czars who answer to no one but Obama. You are right not to trust this administration, or for that matter this government at this time.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> Like I said earlier Ron, if the above is true, than I too have a problem with it. I wasn't sure about the details of who makes the judgement call, hence why I asked in my reply to Plainsman if it was outlined.
> 
> I cannot imagine the bill wouldn't have a group who were internet security experts as a part of the early warning panel. In fact I'm certain that NSA has an entire security program dedicated to cyber warfare, as they are part of the working group watching Conficker.


Ryan I am not afraid of the security detail!!! I am concerned about who they answer to REP or DEM. Our ablity Ryan to seek out the truth is enhanced with the net. Our society is not a mobile community with moblie communications.

You want to send US troops into an area for reasons of seizing power what better way to hide it with communications disrupted by your czar!

This should not be allowed period,


----------



## whistler312 (Jul 15, 2009)

Maybe it would be best if the creator of the internet was in charge? Oh, forget that idea. That was AL GORE.


----------

