This Man Has a Key That Can Shut Down the Entire Internet

Related Stories

How Do You Shut Down the Internet in a Whole Country?
They say such chatter can help them monitor terrorist activities and could give them information needed to prevent a future attack. The European Union on Thursday launched a forum bringing together Internet firms like Google, Facebook and Twitter as well as law enforcement agencies to combat online extremism. Virus protection was not neccessary. No-one shoving pop-ups in your face. There is no way to shut it down. Both Twitter and Facebook declined to comment on Trump's remarks, but say they don't tolerate posts that promote violence and aggressively remove such posts when reported by their users. For instance if there was a problem which cause significant financial problems with the banking infrastructure then yes, I do believe the government could and would do this.

Recommended for you

Could our government shut down the Internet?

While the effects of shutting off information access are controversial, the topic of a kill switch does remain to be resolved. This act, created by the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration, gave the president powers of control over the media under certain circumstances. This act was the basis of regulatory power for the executive branch of the government to control electronic communications in the United States.

Presidential Decision Directive 63 PDD , signed in May , established a structure under White House leadership to coordinate the activities of designated lead departments and agencies, in partnership with their counterparts from the private sector, to "eliminate any significant vulnerability to both physical and cyber attacks on our critical infrastructures, including especially our cyber systems". If signed into law, this controversial bill, which the American media dubbed the kill switch bill, would have granted the President emergency powers over the Internet.

Other parts of the bill focused on the establishment of an Office of Cyberspace Policy and on its missions, as well as on the coordination of cyberspace policy at the federal level.

Section of the bill stated that "the President may issue a declaration of a national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure", in which case a response plan is implemented. Said measures should "represent the least disruptive means feasible to the operations of the covered critical infrastructure" and "shall cease to have effect not later than 30 days after the date on which the President issued the declaration of a national cyber emergency" unless the President seeks to extend them, with the approval of the Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy established by the bill.

Interviewed by Candy Crowley on CNN 's State of the Union, Lieberman claimed "it is a fact cyber war is going in some sense right now", "a cyber attack on America [could] do as much or more damage An automatic renewal provision within the proposed legislation would keep it going beyond thirty days. The group recommended that the legislation follows a strict First Amendment scrutiny test:. All three co-authors of the bill subsequently issued a statement claiming that the bill "[narrowed] existing broad Presidential authority to take over telecommunications networks", [10] and Senator Lieberman contended that the bill did not seek to make a 'kill switch' option available "the President will never take over — the government should never take over the Internet" , [10] but instead insisted that serious steps had to be taken in order to counter a potential mass scale cyber attack.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of expired at the end of the — Congress without receiving a vote from either chamber.

There are several issues that may prevent a system to be established in the United States. The Telecommunications Act of deregulated the telecommunications market and allowed for the growth of data carrier services. This makes implementation of a kill switch that much more difficult: A court order is not necessarily the solution either. Even if an ISP is forced by court order, the attack may have already taken place and the prophylactic methods too late in implementing.

There are thousands of ISPs and since they do not have to register, there is no known way of contacting them in time and forcing the ISP to comply. The regulations [ which? The lack of regulation allowed for building of a patch-work system ISPs, Internet Backbone that is extremely complex and not fully known.

In the United States , there are strong [ clarification needed ] citizen and business protection systems. In addition to these fairly large roadblocks, there are human rights groups such as the ACLU, Amnesty International , and others. All of these reasons make implementing the Internet kill switch difficult. The key [ clarification needed ] policy issue is whether or not the United States has the right constitutionally to restrict or cut off access to the Internet.

The powers granted to the presidency starting with the Communications Act of seem to be adequate [ to whom? The next most important question [ to whom? The trade offs are apparent [ to whom? One of the biggest problems [ to whom?

Policy makers [ who? The loss of the network for even a day could cost billions of dollars in lost revenue. The National Cybersecurity Center was set up to deal with these questions, to research threats and design and recommend prophylactic methods. In many ways, [ which? Egypt has only five major Internet service providers; the U. Susan Collins R-Maine said she plans to reintroduce legislation first floated this summer by co-sponsor Joe Lieberman, the independent senator from Connecticut.

The bill would give the president power over privately owned computer systems in the case of a national cyber-emergency. I do believe this could be possible. It depends on how bad the situation was. For instance if there was a problem which cause significant financial problems with the banking infrastructure then yes, I do believe the government could and would do this. But I do not believe the US government would do this out of tyranny such as the leaders in Egypt. Any politician in the U.

Come on America, wake-up! There is never any justification for this sort of censorship and control. Wake up America is right! And Joe Lieberman, you are a sneaky,horrible, treasonous, treacherous piece of crap.

We should do the opposite of what happened in Egypt: My first gut reaction was…. But they want the power to shut it down completely?

I think that we DO need some way to contain a cyber attack. Please refute your opinions with specific valid examples that would annihilate the freedom of individual opinion Thank you!

Please refute your opinions with specific examples that would annihilate the freedom of individual opinion! Also the second amendment needs to be overturned. Yep, owned by the American multinational company Boeing…the one with all the defense contracts. So who shut down Egypt? How would such a scenario develop? How much do you know about the operation of the internet and how much impact it could have on the banking infrastructure? By the way, banks do not supply breathing air.

To shut the country down because the banks have an issue however serious is really, inconceivably moronic. I do not think this comment states that they condone the Government to shut down the internet Nor does it state that the banks control the internet. It is merely stating that something which impacts the financial infrastructure of America such as the internet if not properly regulated and controlled could cause serious problems for everyday life.

Imagine if you could no longer use your credit or debit card ANYWHERE because of a foreign attack on the internet or some sort of mass denial of service on the internet. In order for a problem like this to be resolved it may be necessary for the Government to shut the internet down to get it under control.

I have worked with corporate networks and internet security for 20 years and hold many certifications, and I know that this could be a fact of reality. When something is harmless to the people and provides only blessings and benefit to the public our Government usually leaves it alone. But when it becomes a threat to our everyday freedoms and our way of life they will and do step in to keep things under control.

I am thankful they protect us from things that many people do not understand. I Know internet security and I Know the threats that are facing our infrastructure and I am Glad that the Obama presidency is leading the charge against cyber terrorism.

See the above comment. No one said that the banks supply breathing air. I am certain I know a lot more about the internet infrastructure than you do. PBS is becoming such a government tool. Spare me the effort: Corporations are butter to a Senator or any other powerful political figure in the US who wants something. All they need do is pick up a telephone and exert little pressure. In Iceland and elsewhere, where they still have common sense, and a government still trying to be of and for the people, they are asking who Visa thinks it is telling us what causes we can give money to?

He hates freedom, and loves control and power. He is an idiot who knows not the slightest thing about liberty and justice. He is a political operator who serves an elite with interests in near fascism. He hates meritocracy in a way only a sniveling, privileged, undeserving, utterly corrupted Connecticut politician can, a brand of it that is nowhere more duplicitous.

Even cynical, snobbish Connecticut voters could no longer stomach Dodd or him. Both are lame ducks and reviled in their home states. Right now our freedoms are being tossed and no one seems to care or does not want too sacrifice.

For instance is there anyone out there that has cut up all credit cards and only uses cash? Or do most think that having what and when they buy tracked and recorded is ok?

Credit cards are Evil. Government control of the internet must be kept at a minimum. It originally was developed by the U. Once new technology was developed to replace this archaic medium, they the government gave the internet to the people.

After all, it was the tax payers money that developed it. Not those within the continental borders. And this should be in cooperation with Canada. Mexico is unreliable in this regard, so they must be blocked. Not even a small chance. Connie Snyder, you must have bought the Glenn Beck starter kit with the chalkboard and sneakers. What exactly does that prove? Also, this was not an instantaneous event on the front end; each service provider approached the task of shutting down its part of the Egyptian Internet separately.

This sequencing looks more like people getting phone calls, one at a time, telling them to take themselves off the air. Not an automated system that takes all providers down at once; instead, the incumbent leads and other providers follow meekly one by one until Egypt is silenced. There is one other provider everyone seem to have forgotten about. Noor Group AS , which retained 83 out of 83 live routes to its Egyptian customers throughout the outage with inbound transit from Telecom Italia as usual.

Why was Noor Group apparently unaffected by the countrywide take-down order? It is uncertain at this point, but the Egyptian Stock Exchange www. Nor as devious on the part of any American company. You see, nothing gets by us. The Defense Department has already released news on their high altitude weather modification spraying news. Even the Canadians are complaining, because the U. Lord forbid should Internet life come to a screeching halt!

‘The address book filled up’