Presidential authority to shut down / seize public internet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said before (I am an IT guy) shutting down the Internet as a whole is easy and so is selectively shutting down opposition websites and blogs. That's just a matter of instructing the dozen or so co-location sites to pull the plug (physically or electronically) on offending sites/servers. Or of rerouting attempts to reach opposition sites to a "server down" page. It's a no-brainer if you have the power.

Email is just a matter of either blocking port 25 (all email server to email server traffic) at the routers, or selectively shutting down non-corporate and governmental email servers. Shutting down yahoo mail and hotmail servers would take no time and shut down 80% of personal email. A call to ISPs and colleges would finish the rest.

Almost none of the above would have a major effect on non-Internet business and could be maintained for many-many months if not years. Yes a savvy few would get around it but that would effective eliminate organized mass protests and opposition. Your news sources would become limited to the mainstream media.

Should the government have the legal authority to shut down any part of the Internet? No way!!! There is zero legitimate need for them to do so. None what so ever. Instead they should mandate that no critical systems (power grid etc) be connected to the Internet. There is simply no excuse for having critical systems exposed to the net.
 
Almost none of the above would have a major effect on non-Internet business
Click to expand...

Problem is, almost ALL retail business operates with internet or satellite uplinks to credit card companies, banks, distribution centers, basically shutting down the internet would economically halt almost all business except on a cash basis. Then there is the telecommunications industries, energy management systems, etc.

There is , effectively, little non-internet business left.

The effects would be immeasurable, and, I would think, cause an already volatile public, to have the opposite reaction of the intended purpose.

Yes a savvy few would get around it but that would effective eliminate organized mass protests and opposition. Your news sources would become limited to the mainstream media.
Click to expand...

There may be more than a "savvy few" who could still communicate within limited areas, and; Old Age and Treachery...

After reading this thread, I have done a bit of research on the net, and we are not the only ones who see the possibilities of this going badly, but it does bear continuing to inform and educate, and remain vigilant.
 
Problem is, almost ALL retail business operates with internet or satellite uplinks to credit card companies, banks, distribution centers, basically shutting down the internet would economically halt almost all business except on a cash basis. Then there is the telecommunications industries, energy management systems, etc.
Click to expand...
That's why it would be smart to selectively shutdown non-corporate email and opposition websites instead of the whole Internet. That would massively disorganize any opposition. "Just for the duration of the emergency" of course. 1/3 of people would seethe, 1/3 would say it's justified for the duration of the "emergency", and the 1/3 that make up the faithful would cheer the government shuttering opposition sites.

There may be more than a "savvy few" who could still communicate within limited areas
Click to expand...
Not enough to organize or publicize mass protests. You might get demonstrations at a college or two but nobody will hear about it. Not with the media refusing to report it. We face a situation that is not unlike the old Soviet Union in that the media has become little more than a propaganda arm for the government and that government is now reaching to take control of the only remaining methods of informing the public of what is going on around them.
 
That's why it would be smart to selectively shutdown non-corporate email and opposition websites instead of the whole Internet.
Click to expand...
Except what about when corporate websites and email accounts start to be used by the opposition? My boss would be rewriting the company website himself if he had to he knows lots of like minded individuals and communicates with them via their corporate email accounts already. Thus they would have to either go through every web page individually or shut everything down.

They would be able to pull this off short term, but not long term without serious problems.
 
It is a mistake to assume that Big Brother would not also be prepared to impose a virtual freeze on commerce should he/she decide to invoke this authority to block the internet. In fact, I would argue that the two would run parallel to achieve a shared objective - to paralyze the nation, to sow fear, confusion and uncertainty, and to provide a singular path to "salvation" - through Big Brother, of course. Therefore, any argument that commercial disruptions would trump such a thing from happening is a non-starter, at least in my opinion.
 
People know to look on fox or newsbusters, or Rush's site for news of what's really going on, or for where the TEA parties will be held. If those are down and and non-corporate email is down how will people know to look on specific corporate websites for news or TEA Party dates? How long do you think corporate sites would be allowed to remain up? There would be plenty of the "faithful" reporting anyone spreading bad thoughts and not many corporations will risk the company site to spread the word. Trust me there is plenty of time right now to make white lists and black lists of sites that should be shut down in the event of an "emergency" and what sites should remain up if everything else is blocked.

But don't doubt that someone up to their neck in political hot water wouldn't use a "national emergency" to shut down protests. Or that they couldn't easily shutdown all but the sites of political allies. Then over time they could allow politically reliable commerce and corporate sites and email to come back on line. "Abuse" your corporate website or corporate email privileges and they go away. The politically co-opted media would happily play ball.
 
Last edited:
Going by history...

... it's less likely that "Big Brother" would shut down the internet, than that "Big Brother" would start a war.

That's a tried and true method for empowerment of the regime, based on the histories of most nations.
 
... it's less likely that "Big Brother" would shut down the internet, than that "Big Brother" would start a war.

That's a tried and true method for empowerment of the regime, based on the histories of most nations.
Click to expand...
Well, that presupposes an external enemy. What if Big Brother views its biggest enemy as lying within its own borders?
 
What if Big Brother views its biggest enemy as lying within its own borders?
Click to expand...

Then "Big Brother", if he acts according to that view, may begin a self-fulfilling prophecy, and he may not be prepared for the outcome.
 
Getting back to the subject at hand I think we should all be writing our congress critters and telling them to nip this in the bud.
 
There would be plenty of the "faithful" reporting anyone spreading bad thoughts and not many corporations will risk the company site to spread the word.
Click to expand...
Mine would. If they shut us down, and in turn shut down the computers at our clients sites, then lets just say that things would soon get VERY interesting across the 5 states we service.
 
csmsss said...

Well, that presupposes an external enemy. What if Big Brother views its biggest enemy as lying within its own borders?
Click to expand...

That doesn't take away from my original statement. For the last several centuries, regimes have often dealt with internal dissent by creating an international crisis with a neighboring state. This allows the regime to do several things:

1) Take attention away from the ineptitude, corruption, or what have you that riled up the governed with the government, and deflect it toward an external "enemy."

2) Attempt to build up a strong, pro-nationalist movement.

3) Use martial law to crack down on dissenters.

These steps have often, but not always, been followed by attacks on the "enemy" state. Such attacks could have been justified by actual or manufactured offenses by the "enemy."

If all goes well, such a war:

1) Adds territory, and possibly adds funds to the treasury.

2) Makes the government look competent; after all, they won the war.

3) Builds a high level of nationalist, pro-government fervor.

For possible examples of where this could happen next, watch the governments of Iran, Venezuela, and Honduras.
 
MLeake said:

... it's less likely that "Big Brother" would shut down the internet, than that "Big Brother" would start a war.
Click to expand...

In Orwell's book "1984" Big Brother was the Internet; and war was the daily drumbeat as Oceania was allied with Eastasia in a lingering war against Eurasia. As I recall, the "war" was false and Big Brother actually ruled dictatorially over all three countries.
 
Too much of a political rant and attempting to avoid the language filter. Let's stay on topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getting back to the subject at hand I think we should all be writing our congress critters and telling them to nip this in the bud.
Click to expand...


There's the answer, Tell our "representatives" how we feel about an issue, that will get their attention !

Look how effective it's been on other current issues :rolleyes:
 
Recent example I forgot to add...

Look at what Russia did in August 2008 vs Georgia.

This served two purposes: It distracted dissent at home, and served notice on Europe that the big bad bear hadn't lost all its claws and teeth.

With all the saber rattling Russia was doing this July and August, I was afraid we were going to see a redux.

Or look at what's going on to this day in Chechnya.

Governments traditionally use military or paramilitary actions for reasons that go way beyond the stated objective; I think this will always trump manipulation of the internet, because quite frankly it's probably easier to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top