New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

And yet another story about the Net "Kill Switch" which I am including as it gives another perspective about this situation. (See RELATED STORIES at the bottom of this page following the story.) There are also some links to information that wasn't provided in the two previous stories that I've posted this weekend. But, to be starkly up front with you, what really drew me to this column is the following graphic!

Barry at the Net "Kill Switch"

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

Government would have “absolute power"
to seize control of the world wide web
under Lieberman legislation

By Paul Joseph Watson

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.

Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence. (Emphasis my own)

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

READ FULL STORY at PrisonPlanet.com

RELATED STORIES:
Should president have Net 'kill switch'? ~ By Joseph Farah
Is Obama getting Web 'kill switch'?

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Is Obama getting Web 'kill switch'?

Okay, now I am starting to get freaked out. It is getting difficult keeping all of these cyber-security agencies straight. Some are part of the Dept. of Defense, and some are part of Homeland Security within the National Security Agency (NSA). While I was reading this column, I noticed that the story's author, Michael Carl, didn't provide very many links. I surfed around in google.com, and added a few of the links myself where appropriate. This way, you can do some of your own surfing as you read this, and hopefully eliminate some confusion as to what is going on here.

I need to reiterate what I had written earlier this morning when posting Joseph Farah's column, "Should president have Net 'kill switch'?":

I have to agree with Joseph that it is doubtful that there would be any national security scenario that would provide a good "excuse" to hit the "kill switch." I guess Senator Joe Lieberman must not be aware of US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) under Dept. of Homeland Security. I think they have the cyber-security threats under control, and there would be absolutely NO reason for anyone to need to hit the "Kill Switch" button. Well, not unless.... ummm... they wanted to cut off all communication so that people wouldn't be able to find out what is going on in a "national emergency." In other words, as Joseph talks about, it's a 1st Amendment issue ONLY.

And now, I'm not honestly so sure that the concern for the 1st Amendment is truly an issue. Under key elements of the legislation (See #5) in one of the articles I read, it says the following:

Creation of a responsible framework, developed in coordination with the private sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. The President must notify Congress in advance before exercising these emergency powers. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat and will expire after 30 days unless the President extends them. The bill authorizes no new surveillance authorities and does not authorize the government to ‘take over’ private networks.

The "kill switch" - emergency measures, in other words - is apparently supposed to be limited in order to minimize disruption to the Net. So, maybe the uproar about this legislation being a threat to the 1st Amendment isn't completely warranted. However, the amount of money to pay for cyber-security and the additional growth of the government (Big Brother) is greatly concerning. And I must admit, there is always the possibility that at some point of time, all of these new cyber-security agencies could become a threat to our freedom at some point in time. Just sayin'...

The newly operational status of the Cyber Command also is driving concern about the federal government's interest in taking control of the Internet. CNET News reported last August concern over a federal takeover of the Internet was fueled by the introduction of a Senate bill that would give President Obama the authority to take command of the system – or prevent private computers from having access.

The fury over possible federal control of the Internet has not abated, according to a report by Federal News Radio's Tom Temin and Amy Morris.

Temin and Morris say the bill proposed by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper would give the president authority to shut down the Internet in the event of a cyber attack. The shutdown actions would be done through the Department of Homeland Security.

Plan cites security to ramp up government control over Internet

Posted: June 17, 2010 ~ 8:37 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Congress is proposing a tighter grip by the government on the Internet, with a new "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010" that would, among other things, give the president a "kill switch" on the Web, critics charge.

Officials with Judicial Watch, a government-watchdog group that investigates and prosecutes government misbehavior, said the plan simply is "keeping with the big-government script" of the Obama administration.

The organization said the bill would grant the federal government "absolute power" to shut down Internet activity and allow the president to take it over in the name of "national security."

The proposal essentially would require broadband providers, search engines and software firms to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" within the Department of Homeland Security.

Punishment would await offenders.

Judicial Watch said the alarming plan would give the government the power to force private companies to participate in "information sharing" with the government and allow authorities to monitor the "security status" of private websites and others.

"Yet another new government agency (National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications) will be created to police the industry and any company that 'relies on' the Internet, the telephone system or any other component of the 'information infrastructure' will be subject to its command," the organization said.

"The new (National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications) will have no less than two deputy directors and liaison officers to the Defense, Justice and Commerce departments as well as the director of national intelligence."

Judicial Watch also said arming the president with an Internet "kill switch" easily could be misused to silence free speech "under the pretext of a national emergency." (emphasis added by me)

There already is an organization set up to manage such situations and it includes personnel from the National Security Agency, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and policymakers (politicians), according to a report from WND columnist Andrea Shea King.

The administration agency, dubbed CYBERCOM, is set up within the Department of Defense and reports it is both a defense and an offense in that it can engage in preemptive "strikes" intended to disrupt threats, she reported.

Big Brother in 1984

At a site called "Tech 1984 - Where Technology and Big Brother Collide," a commentator suggested: "Even though the primary purpose of CYBERCOM is to protect government and military networks, there is incredible pressure to extend that 'protection' to civilian and business networks as well. In fact, the second-highest official at the Pentagon, William Lynn III, deputy secretary of defense, recently announced that the Department of Defense might start a protective program for civilian networks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated the same thing in June 2009."

The new legislative proposal comes at the same time the Federal Communications Commission still is attempting to act on a policy called "net neutrality." CNET Networks reported in April that a federal court ruled that the FCC could not act on net neutrality, but the court decision hasn't stopped the push for that agenda as the FCC is still attempting to regulate the Internet using federal rules used to control phone lines.

A government systems analyst who publishes the Tech 1984 site and prefers to use the pseudonym Winston, a name borrowed from Winston Smith from George Orwell's "1984," said the newly activated Cyber Command was proposed last year by Defense Secretary William Gates as a means to protect the military's vast Internet network from attacks by outside or hostile forces.

"Winston" is a confidential source with connections to the cybersecurity industry.

Director Maj. Gen. Steven Smith said in a statement posted on the Army's site that the new agency will be responsible for defending Army information networks from threats around the globe.

"The mission for (the Cyber Command) is to direct the operation and defense of all Army networks, and, on order, conduct full-spectrum operations in support of our combatant commanders and coalition partners," Smith said.

Smith said the new unit will use existing Army and Defense resources and bring together parts of the 9th Signal Command, the First Information Operations Command and the Intelligence and Security Command.

However, Winston, the analyst, believes the new move will be aimed at civilian computer networks. Winston bases his assessment on a recent statement made by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn.

"The best-laid defenses on military networks will matter little unless our civilian critical infrastructure is also protected. Critical infrastructure will certainly be targeted in a military conflict," Lynn stated.

"The Department of Homeland Security appropriately has the lead to protect the dot-gov and dot-mil domains. The Defense Department plays an important supporting role in this mission, and has direct responsibility for securing defense-industry networks," Lynn added.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Should president have Net 'kill switch'? ~ By Joseph Farah

Mr. Obama has wasted no time implementing this destructive, invasive, oppressive worldview where the Internet is concerned. He is, after all, the man who previously sought the power of a collective "off" switch for the Web – in the form of a Senate bill that would give the White House "the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet."

~ Phil Elmore, February 4, 2010, in "Obama's totalitarian plans for the Net"

The above quote was provided to set the stage for Joseph's column. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that the man in the Oval Office along with his minions have a lot of reason to be able to disconnect the Internet. I have to agree with Joseph that it is doubtful that there would be any national security scenario that would provide a good "excuse" to hit the "kill switch." I guess Senator Joe Lieberman must not be aware of US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) under Dept. of Homeland Security. I think they have the cyber-security threats under control, and there would be absolutely NO reason for anyone to need to hit the "Kill Switch" button.  Well, not unless.... ummm... they wanted to cut off all communication so that people wouldn't be able to find out what is going on in a "national emergency." In other words, as Joseph talks about, it's a 1st Amendment issue ONLY.  Just sayin'...

Is the answer to security risks shutting down the nation's No. 1 communications mechanism?

It would seem to me that in almost any national emergency I could envision, the Internet would be a vital resource for every American. Why would any president want it shut down?

I think what we really need is a "kill switch" for Washington's relentless power grabs.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I guess I'm just an old First Amendment dinosaur – like my friend Nat Hentoff.

I seem to be the only person in the world truly alarmed by a new U.S. Senate bill (not one from the USSR, mind you, but from the U.S. Senate) that would give the president of the United States the authority to shut down the Internet in times of emergency.

Does that seem right to you?

As I understand it, the president already had absolute authority to direct the oil cleanup effort in the Gulf of Mexico under legislation approved by Congress. How's that working out for everyone?

Do you honestly trust this president of the United States or, for that matter, any president of the United States with that kind of censorship power?

For 230 years, the president didn't have the legislative power to pull the kill switch on the nation's newspapers or, later, the nation's radio airwaves, or, later still, the nation's television signals.

The Internet represents so much more than all of those media combined. It is quickly becoming the central communication resource for everyone. It will soon rival even the telephone for personal communications.

I'm trying to imagine the kind of emergency that would justify the president blinding and deafening 300 million Americans.

Can you figure out what that kind of emergency would look like?

Can you figure out how cutting off all communications would be a positive thing, a life-saving thing, a safety and security measure?

I sure can't.

But I can consult the congressional record to see what people like Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had to say in justifying this draconian legislation.

He explained that these measures would allow the government "to preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people."

Huh?

OK, he elaborated: "For all its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies – cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

Of course, Lieberman has a lot of knowledge and experience in this area. You might remember, he ran on a presidential ticket with a guy who claimed to have invented the Internet.

I fully acknowledge the threats posed to our country from cyber-warfare. But the ramifications of the president being handed a "kill switch" to disable parts or potentially all of the Internet are far more grave than the threats posed by any enemies.

Terrorists and criminals have also used telephones in plotting their evil deeds. Yet I haven't heard anyone suggest the president have a "kill switch" for all telephone service.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Dissenters To Be Detained As “Enemy Belligerents”?

I happened to come across this story tonight, and decided that it needed to be posted, even though it is a little over a month old. I am wondering if - especially thanks to this blog - I'd be determined to be an "enemy belligerent"? If so, can you imagine all the people like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck that I could get to meet in the detention camp?

Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. Perhaps the video below explains just how “enemy belligerents” will be identified on American soil.

New bill allows U.S. citizens to be kidnapped and detained without trial indefinitely based on “suspected activity”

By Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Monday, March 8, 2010

Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.

The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.

The full bill can be read here (PDF).

The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”

A person is considered a “high value detainee” if they fulfil one of the following criteria.

(1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.

However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.

This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.

The only proviso that even hints at some form of check or balance is the measure that states, “The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.”

"The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination," states the bill.

READ FULL STORY at PrisonPlanet.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Your purchases will help me to fund attending tea party rallies,

and maybe even buy a new computer someday!

7 Reasons Why The GOP Can't Build A Moderate Political Party

There is no "moderate" political party in the United States. When the American people go to the ballot box, we have a center-right nation choosing between the Republican Party and radical, left-wing socialists.

read more | digg story