Internet Kill Switch ?

[Ed Normile]

I am sure you have heard about the ongoing debate over the " Internet Kill Switch " as it has been labeled, that the Obama administration has been pushing for, for over a year now. The Obama administration calls it regulation of communication to be used only during a national emergency, intended to protect key business and defensive infrastructure during an internet terrorist attack. Its actually an extension of the 1934 FCC law that allows the president to "authorize the use or control " of communications outlets during times of emergency. This was recently done in Egypt by Mubarak when he closed down the countries four internet providers silencing the internet in an attempt to quell opposition from easy communication to coordinate their actions against his regime, the proponents of the bill state that America has thousands of internet providers, many which are adamantly opposed to any government intervention, so a similiar move would be next to impossible here.

Personally I think the government could use this bill, if passed this time, for this very means with very little problem or opposition. Who could stop armed enforcers ( military or federal agents ) backed by legislation from shutting off their internet service, its not like AOL or MSN or any other IP addresses have their own army to defend their domains. This bill seeks to limit freedom of speech, the original FCC bill of 1934 already limits that very freedom so it seems it has precedence, although this bill would allow the closing down of grass roots communications, or dialogue between individuals for a better example. This is a USA Today article which is fair enough in its presentation of the bill, although its definetly government bent, its not as bad as the more non-secular articles you can find for either side of the argument. [url="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2011-02-15-kill-switch_N.htm"]USA Today article on " Kill Switch Bill "[/url] Give it a read and ask yourself two things, 1. Could the government use this power to shut down the internet in case of anarchy? 2. Do you think the government always acts responsible with powers it seizes or basic rights that it removes from its citizenry?

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

If the state government takes that power as their own, I don't believe that there can be any rational opposition to the claim that the US is a police state.

[Sternhauser]

[quote]1. Could the government use this power to shut down the internet in case of anarchy?[/quote]
No, because in a state of anarchy, there is no State. Wherever there is chaos, on the other hand, there are always people who think they have the right to use a gun to make other people do things.

[quote]2. Do you think the government always acts responsible with powers it seizes or basic rights that it removes from its citizenry?
[/quote]

[i]Absolutely. [/i]


You can't stop the signal, Mal.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298818859' post='2216108']
No, because in a state of anarchy, there is no State. Wherever there is chaos, on the other hand, there are always people who think they have the right to use a gun to make other people do things.



[i]Absolutely. [/i]


You can't stop the signal, Mal.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Your first statement is pretty lame, during the act of of Anarchy there is of course a "State" if there is , or was, no "State" there would be no need for anarchy. The Anarchy would be to overthrow the state, which would then be replaced by a state more pleasing to the Anarchists.

ed

[kujo]

Unless I am mistaken, this is not an issue being spearheaded by the Obama Adminsitration. It is, however, a bill that has been introduced by Senator Joe Biden, to the chagrin of Republican and Democrat alike.

Not gonna happen, guys. The antics of Mubarak in Egypt and Ahmadinejad in Iran are serving to undercut any support this measure has. Don't sweat it.

[kujo]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1299037763' post='2217017']
Your first statement is pretty lame, during the act of of Anarchy there is of course a "State" if there is , or was, no "State" there would be no need for anarchy. The Anarchy would be to overthrow the state, which would then be replaced by a state more pleasing to the Anarchists.

ed
[/quote]

False.

It's a common misconception. Rather than connoting a period of violence and terror, the term "anarchy" refers to a time where no authority above "the people" exists. Thus, there would be no "state," no "country," no "system" at all.

In international relations theory, the school of "realism" believes that the international system is characterized as being anarchical because of the lack of overarching authority. There's no law above the laws of the individual states.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1299037763' post='2217017']
Your first statement is pretty lame, during the act of of Anarchy there is of course a "State" if there is , or was, no "State" there would be no need for anarchy. The Anarchy would be to overthrow the state, which would then be replaced by a state more pleasing to the Anarchists.

ed
[/quote]
You don't seem to understand the statement.

Anarchism is the absence of the State. The State is the manifestation of the [wrong] idea that some men have a right to initiate aggression against others. Thus, anarchism is the absence [generally] of people who believe in the idea that some men have the right to initiate aggression against others. The absence of people who believe in the idea means that the idea does not get acted upon, and thus, there is no legitimized, systematized aggression. There is no such thing as a State that is amenable to voluntaryists/anarchists.

Do I expect such a world to come about? No. Do I expect a world in which most people adhere to the Golden Rule? No. But there is no acceptable alternative to either world. We must strive to live according to the Golden Rule. Likewise, we must strive not to initiate aggression against our neighbors.

~Sternhauser

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1298789948' post='2216087']
I am sure you have heard about the ongoing debate over the " Internet Kill Switch " as it has been labeled, that the Obama administration has been pushing for, for over a year now. The Obama administration calls it regulation of communication to be used only during a national emergency, intended to protect key business and defensive infrastructure during an internet terrorist attack. Its actually an extension of the 1934 FCC law that allows the president to "authorize the use or control " of communications outlets during times of emergency. This was recently done in Egypt by Mubarak when he closed down the countries four internet providers silencing the internet in an attempt to quell opposition from easy communication to coordinate their actions against his regime, the proponents of the bill state that America has thousands of internet providers, many which are adamantly opposed to any government intervention, so a similiar move would be next to impossible here.

Personally I think the government could use this bill, if passed this time, for this very means with very little problem or opposition. Who could stop armed enforcers ( military or federal agents ) backed by legislation from shutting off their internet service, its not like AOL or MSN or any other IP addresses have their own army to defend their domains. This bill seeks to limit freedom of speech, the original FCC bill of 1934 already limits that very freedom so it seems it has precedence, although this bill would allow the closing down of grass roots communications, or dialogue between individuals for a better example. This is a USA Today article which is fair enough in its presentation of the bill, although its definetly government bent, its not as bad as the more non-secular articles you can find for either side of the argument. [url="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2011-02-15-kill-switch_N.htm"]USA Today article on " Kill Switch Bill "[/url] Give it a read and ask yourself two things, 1. Could the government use this power to shut down the internet in case of anarchy? 2. Do you think the government always acts responsible with powers it seizes or basic rights that it removes from its citizenry?

ed
[/quote]




the government has more than enough power.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1299285324' post='2218048']
the government has more than enough power.
[/quote]
Might makes right these days.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299300235' post='2218118']
Might makes right these days.
[/quote]

yeah i guess. or at least some people think so.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299300235' post='2218118']
Might makes right these days.
[/quote]


Yea, also back in the days that David slew Goliath too.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1299999557' post='2220430']
Yea, also back in the days that David slew Goliath too.

ed
[/quote]
At least in those days there was a sense of God in the general consciousness.
The only reason praying isn't taxed is because the government hasn't figured out how yet.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299999809' post='2220431']
[b]At least in those days there was a sense of God in the general consciousness.
[/b]The only reason praying isn't taxed is because the government hasn't figured out how yet.
[/quote]


Gee, you missed the thread about the Presidency deepening Obama's faith?

ed

Edited March 13, 2011 by Ed Normile

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1299274442' post='2217985']
You don't seem to understand the statement.

Anarchism is the absence of the State. The State is the manifestation of the [wrong] idea that some men have a right to initiate aggression against others. Thus, anarchism is the absence [generally] of people who believe in the idea that some men have the right to initiate aggression against others. The absence of people who believe in the idea means that the idea does not get acted upon, and thus, there is no legitimized, systematized aggression. There is no such thing as a State that is amenable to voluntaryists/anarchists.

Do I expect such a world to come about? No. Do I expect a world in which most people adhere to the Golden Rule? No. But there is no acceptable alternative to either world. We must strive to live according to the Golden Rule. Likewise, we must strive not to initiate aggression against our neighbors.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


Well now I see it clearer, Adam and Eve were Anarchists !!

In your defintion, and the lovable Saint Bernard Kujo's definition of Anarchism there would be no state to rebel against? What would be the act of anarchy then, the anarchist would be uneeded and in reality non existing. If there were no government he would cease to exist. The anarchist is dependent upon the state to have something to rail against, in his perfect utopian society he would be just a hunter/gatherer or perhaps a farmer, maybe even carry a pointed stick to defend against those who would come to take his produce or abscond with his woman. Maybe he would appoint someone or maybe even hire a person or persons to provide for his security, then he could become an anarchist again as he would have the trappings of a state to deal with again, vicious circle this dream world is.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1300002580' post='2220440']
Well now I see it clearer, Adam and Eve were Anarchists !!

In your defintion, and the lovable Saint Bernard Kujo's definition of Anarchism there would be no state to rebel against? What would be the act of anarchy then, the anarchist would be uneeded and in reality non existing. If there were no government he would cease to exist. The anarchist is dependent upon the state to have something to rail against, in his perfect utopian society he would be just a hunter/gatherer or perhaps a farmer, maybe even carry a pointed stick to defend against those who would come to take his produce or abscond with his woman. Maybe he would appoint someone or maybe even hire a person or persons to provide for his security, then he could become an anarchist again as he would have the trappings of a state to deal with again, vicious circle this dream world is.

ed
[/quote]
If an anarchist is a person who wants to live without a state, then he remains an anarchist if his goals come to fruition. It's just that he doesn't need to fight to get there anymore.