Legislation to Shutdown Internet in an "Emergency" - Page 4
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

Thread: Legislation to Shutdown Internet in an "Emergency"

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    If you want to really take control of the Internet all you have to do in find the 16 root servers and knock them our of commissison. BTW they are not all in the US and few people actually know where they are.
    Just FYI, there are not "16 root servers" for the internet. There are many hundreds (possibly thousands) of routers, configured in a mesh. They are scattered all over the world. Even if you took half out, you'd only cause outages for a small percentage of the Internet populace, and possibly cause slowdown for others.

    While I suppose it is theoretically possible to shut down all telecom entry/exit points in the U.S., I think it would be impractical to the point of being beyond silly. What is possible, however, is for the major ISPs (AT&T, TimeWarner, Cox, etc.) to be forced, through legislation, to turn off Internet access for millions of Americans near-simultaneously. You don't have to "shut down the Internet" in order to cause a major breakdown in civilian Internet-based communication, you just need to disrupt the access of the majority of users.

    In addition, you don't even have to "turn off" the actual Internet access to disrupt most users. There are plenty of ways of breaking things. For example, all your ISP has to do is change what DNS you're using. DNS means "domain name server," the part of the Internet that tells your computer that "www.usacarry.com" is located at the IP address of 69.50.137.145; everything on the Internet is accessed via IP addresses, the names are a human convenience. The vast majority of Internet users are using the DNS of their ISP (though you don't have to). If your ISP changes your DNS to one which doesn't allow lookups of names, or returns bogus results, most Internet-using Americans would be left thinking the Internet was "broken."

    Point is, there are many ways to effectively disrupt Internet access at a national level, given enough authority. The government doesn't need to to clear the hurdles required to actually "shut down the Internet" to make things very difficult.

    Legislation such as this is dangerous.
    South Carolina CWP holder and proud member of GrassRoots GunRights

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionOne View Post
    Point is, there are many ways to effectively disrupt Internet access at a national level, given enough authority.
    This is not the intent of the legislation. It is to PROTECT and MAINTAIN INTERNET ACCESS/CONNECTIVITY and prevent our enemies from disrupting or denying Internet access.

    Any explanation supporting the preconceived FUD conclusion is meaningless nonsense.

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    This is not the intent of the legislation.
    I don't care what the supposed intent of the legislation is, I care about what power it actually gives those who will be able to use it, and how it's likely to be abused. The point of the USA PATRIOT Act was to combat terrorism, but that hasn't stopped the Powers That Be from using it to erode our civil liberties.

    Then again, I might be paranoid. *shrug* Just my $0.02.
    South Carolina CWP holder and proud member of GrassRoots GunRights

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Why change the subject to the Patriot Act and "alleged, unspecified" Civil liberties abuses? More FUD?

    The only nefarious intent witrh the subj. legislation OR the Patriot Act is in the minds of extremeists like you who paint all things governmnet in the broad brush FUD color.

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    ... in the minds of extremeists like you...
    No need for personal attacks. I've made very few posts on this site; you don't know me, or many of my beliefs. You don't have enough information to call me an extremist.

    I was expressing an opinion on one subject, nothing more and nothing less. The reference to the USA PATRIOT act was only meant to illustrate that legislation, well-intentioned or not, can be (and sometimes is) abused. I take it from your statements you don't agree the act has been abused; if so, that's fine, I accept that. You have to know others disagree with you, though. Even without doing a search I'm pretty sure it's been discussed here before. If not here, it has been discussed, in sometimes exhaustive detail, elsewhere. My intention was not to thread-jack and change the subject.

    As I work in the I.T. field professionally, this particular bit of legislation hits close to home. Any time some person or organization attempts to exert control over the Internet, my default position is, "hell no!" I personally feel the need for any such attempt to be justified extremely well in order to even be considered. This doesn't strike me as particularly well thought out, and the potential for abuse is too high for me to feel comfortable with it.

    As I said, it's just my $0.02... which may not even be worth $0.02. Take it or leave it as you see fit.
    South Carolina CWP holder and proud member of GrassRoots GunRights

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionOne View Post
    No need for personal attacks. I've made very few posts on this site; you don't know me, or many of my beliefs. You don't have enough information to call me an extremist.

    I was expressing an opinion on one subject, nothing more and nothing less. The reference to the USA PATRIOT act was only meant to illustrate that legislation, well-intentioned or not, can be (and sometimes is) abused. I take it from your statements you don't agree the act has been abused; if so, that's fine, I accept that. You have to know others disagree with you, though. Even without doing a search I'm pretty sure it's been discussed here before. If not here, it has been discussed, in sometimes exhaustive detail, elsewhere. My intention was not to thread-jack and change the subject.

    As I work in the I.T. field professionally, this particular bit of legislation hits close to home. Any time some person or organization attempts to exert control over the Internet, my default position is, "hell no!" I personally feel the need for any such attempt to be justified extremely well in order to even be considered. This doesn't strike me as particularly well thought out, and the potential for abuse is too high for me to feel comfortable with it.

    As I said, it's just my $0.02... which may not even be worth $0.02. Take it or leave it as you see fit.
    You will find that Half cocked and Locked is all about attacking other people and never posts any infromative threads. That is the reason that many of us have him on the ignore option on our User CP to block him out. After a while arguing with him gets to be a complete waist of time. IMHO.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionOne View Post
    I don't care what the supposed intent of the legislation is, I care about what power it actually gives those who will be able to use it, and how it's likely to be abused. The point of the USA PATRIOT Act was to combat terrorism, but that hasn't stopped the Powers That Be from using it to erode our civil liberties.

    Then again, I might be paranoid. *shrug* Just my $0.02.
    You are NOT paranoid, C1. Under the current political atmosphere, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. I never thought that I would live to distrust my own government on such a grand scale...but I am convinced that nothing/nobody is beyond their contempt and reach! "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom." -- Thomas Jefferson
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionOne View Post
    As I work in the I.T. field professionally, this particular bit of legislation hits close to home.
    Having an opinion or ".02" on this issue as you like to refer to it is one thing. See my sig for further clarification of my stance on that sublect. Working in IT does not qualify you to make judgements on this matter as you seem to think. It only provides you an illusion of knowledge on certain aspects of what you may consider to be technical issues regarding national security.

    Trust me. That's a fact.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionOne View Post
    Just FYI, there are not "16 root servers" for the internet. There are many hundreds (possibly thousands) of routers, configured in a mesh. They are scattered all over the world. Even if you took half out, you'd only cause outages for a small percentage of the Internet populace, and possibly cause slowdown for others.

    While I suppose it is theoretically possible to shut down all telecom entry/exit points in the U.S., I think it would be impractical to the point of being beyond silly. What is possible, however, is for the major ISPs (AT&T, TimeWarner, Cox, etc.) to be forced, through legislation, to turn off Internet access for millions of Americans near-simultaneously. You don't have to "shut down the Internet" in order to cause a major breakdown in civilian Internet-based communication, you just need to disrupt the access of the majority of users.

    In addition, you don't even have to "turn off" the actual Internet access to disrupt most users. There are plenty of ways of breaking things. For example, all your ISP has to do is change what DNS you're using. DNS means "domain name server," the part of the Internet that tells your computer that "www.usacarry.com" is located at the IP address of 69.50.137.145; everything on the Internet is accessed via IP addresses, the names are a human convenience. The vast majority of Internet users are using the DNS of their ISP (though you don't have to). If your ISP changes your DNS to one which doesn't allow lookups of names, or returns bogus results, most Internet-using Americans would be left thinking the Internet was "broken."

    Point is, there are many ways to effectively disrupt Internet access at a national level, given enough authority. The government doesn't need to to clear the hurdles required to actually "shut down the Internet" to make things very difficult.

    Legislation such as this is dangerous.
    Do you even know what the root servers are? Your talk about the ISP's changing the DNS is exactly what the role of the root servers are. Routers are not servers and have nothing to do with DNS but without the root servers there is no DNS for anyone to use unless you want to try it with some of the alternate DNS servers that have created their own top level domains. When you register a domain name the DNS server information for it is stored on those 13 (I was wrong in thinking it was 16, actually only 13) root servers. All other DNS servers in the world get their information indirectly from those on a "tricke" down" basis when a request is made by a local DNS server. Information is then cached in the local servers for a time anywhere from an hour to a week or so. If those servers were taken out of service and all cached information in local DNS servers flushed after the normal time then the resolving of names would cease. You could still work using IP addresses but since almost all web servers now have to use header records you couldn't do any browsing and almost all email is dependant upon Domain names that would come to a screaching halt. Scary to think that the entire Internet is dependent upon 13 servers.

    For more information and a listing of the root and DURZ servers check out the links below.

    http://www.internic.net/zones/named.root

    http://www.root-servers.org/

  11. #40
    Please see:
    There are not 13 root servers
    and
    Root nameserver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There are 13 root server clusters, all of which are multiple machines and on multiple networks for redundancy, and nine of which are spread across large geographic areas.

    Shutting down local DNS would indeed be very disruptive. Shutting down root server DNS would cause some problems, but not as much as you think. Since they wouldn't be pushing out updates, no changes would trickle down. Local servers, which will have cached most of the common lookups, wouldn't see a lack of an update as a sign to wipe records. While root DNS server disruption would prohibit the addition of new domains to the system, as well as disable zone record updates for existing domains, name resolution would continue so long as all the local and ISP-level name servers continued to operate. Root DNS server disruption is hardly catastrophic.

    In order to actually shut down Internet traffic in and out of the U.S., you would need to shut down hundreds (thousands?) of BGP routers, or filter their traffic. That's a much more difficult task to accomplish, and even then a great deal of regional traffic would be unaffected.
    South Carolina CWP holder and proud member of GrassRoots GunRights

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Senators propose granting president emergency internet power
    By Conservative Wife & Mom in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-13-2010, 10:05 PM
  2. Microstamping legislation passes Assembly
    By lukem in forum New York Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 06:16 PM
  3. Bill would give Obama control of the internet
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 11:05 PM
  4. Now they are going after our other liberties
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 07:42 PM
  5. NY Governor Paterson proposes legislation to reduce gun violence
    By Ruger Lady in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-21-2008, 09:52 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast