The Internet Kill Switch – One Of The Favorite New Tools Of Tyrannical Governments

The Economic Collapse ^ | 01/31/2011 | Michael Snyder

[antiRepublicrat]

Now there's a false dichotomy. Who is the customer? Why can the customer not go to the provider and say "We have these requirements. How much does that cost to fulfill?"

Because when you're talking network security, even those who are not your providers affect your ability to conduct business. This is a whole approach, not ineffective piecemeal. If no government entities are serviced by a certain nuclear power plant, should we just not include it in our defense plans?

The option I propose has the government paying for service.

A big chunk of the bill is the government paying for services to help infrastructure owners comply. The government itself, such as the expertise in CERT, becomes a resource the owners can tap for free.

My preferred solutions are more open and market, and tax-payer, friendly. Yours are more totalitarian.

So we should take an open market solution. Okay. Should we just hope all ports scan for nuclear materials going through them, or do you think the government should have a say in that the ports should monitor for such things? I am generally for open markets, but national security requires top-down coordination and leadership. Even the Constitution didn't just hope people gathered together to defend the country, it allowed for Congress to provide for a militia and its training, and for the President to be its commander in chief.

[WVNan]

It is important for us to have a network of ham operators, especially Freepers.

[MichiganConservative]

A big chunk of the bill is the government paying for services to help infrastructure owners comply.

And this does not help you convince me. So who decides who gets the money? Why am I not surprised? Why do I think this security and war talk is just a smokescreen to cover funnelling taxpayer money to their friends in those companies?

You are not convincing me this is not just another scam to screw the taxpayer.

But, I guess this is needed to protect the payoffs and kickbacks now that the future of Net Neutrality is in questions. Gotta have some way to screw the taxpayers.

Okay. Should we just hope all ports scan for nuclear materials going through them, or do you think the government should have a say in that the ports should monitor for such things?

By the way, they don't scan all those containers.

[antiRepublicrat]

Why do I think this security and war talk is just a smokescreen to cover funnelling taxpayer money to their friends in those companies?

You can say that for a lot of defense spending. But you are left with the basic fact that cyber-warfare is real, that networks have been and will increasingly be a vector of attack on our country. I still believe the federal government is a core component of national defense. It's actually one of the few jobs the Constitution gave them.

By the way, they don't scan all those containers.

I'm talking about one port not deciding to do anything at all. Any bombs and such are probably just going through the port to the intended target, so why should a port operator bother? That's the free market solution, right? Every company decides what to do to protect itself?