Although currently unclear on how the Bush administration would go about denying the Internet to its enemies, cyberspace may become a more active battlefield in the war on terrorism. The new National Strategy for Homeland Security, issued earlier this week by the White House, places a greater emphasis on the "uninterrupted use of the Internet and the communications systems, data, monitoring, and control systems that comprise our cyberinfrastructure." The government's 2006 National Infrastructure Protection Plan acknowledges the need to better secure cyberspace and also suggests that defensive actions will be accompanied by offensive measures.
Whatever its plan for cyberspace, the Bush administration describes the Internet as a tool for the nation's enemies and as a source of vulnerability. The document reads: "The Internet has become a training ground, with terrorists acquiring instruction once possible only through physical training camps. In addition to discrediting their terrorist propaganda on the Internet with the promotion of truthful messages, we will seek to deny the Internet to our terrorist enemies as an effective safe haven for their recruitment, fund-raising, training, and operational planning."
News source: InformationWeek
What a farce, ban mobile phones, telephones, short wave radio, snail mail, and peoples right to congregate. Lets go back to the stone age!
Paedophile web sites, OK, being bombarded with fraudulent emails OK.
How on earth can anyone stop nutters communicating with each other? The IRA learned to communicate in code, and avoid sending messages just before or after an attack, to reduce the risk of being caught by surveillance systems.
"Wake up people!" Your governments are using terrorism (and global warming) as a tool to oppress you! Life is risky, I would like to live freely, even if I finally meet an untimely end! Leave despot regimes for their own people to sort out, don't sell weapons to dictators. Concentrate on controlling illegal immigration and defend borders.
The New World Order is tightening it's grip, and turning the world into a prison planet!
"Not in my name!" Liberty, and Ron Paul for president! Long live the US Constitution and Magna Carta !
Last edited by boho on 15 Oct 2007 - 10:05
But I'm sure as the list of evil unfree rogue regimes expands, and it will, that might be less of an issue.
Look for the anti-Russian propoganda to increase.
They use to have Internet connectivity though, and unless you're trying to stream video or something, speed doesn't matter that much.
The US no longer leads in the broadband race, Japan, Hong Kong, Sweden, and South Korea have beaten us, with France and Germany close on our tails. The US and UK are becoming an internet ghetto because of the greed of Anglo-American telecom monopolies. 10... 20Mbps? That's a joke! In Japan and Hong Kong they're already rolling out premium 1Gbps service, with 100Mbps as standard. Yes, 1Gbps!
Hong Kong Fiber Optic Rates Prove Verizon's FiOS is a Rip-Off
While Verizon is out aggressively trying to sell the country on their FiOS fiber optic web connection packages, which range from $40 per month for 5Mbps to 30Mbps for $180 (extra for TV and phone service!
How about 200Mbps for $88.20? Yeah, not quite enough, I agree. You might as well jump up to 1Gbps for $215.40 a month. But hey, you don't really need that, do you? You should be thanking Verizon for the opportunity to pay them for a pathetic 5Mbps connection.
You know, except for you saying Verizon, AT&T and America, this is exactly the same argument Australia discusses when we look at the infrastructure the USA has. The answer, my friend, is the same for us both, too.
Those countries you're jealous of are tightly inhabited, densely packed neighbourhoods whereas Australia and America have people spread out over millions of square miles of land. Who's going to pay to setup a network at internet2 speeds for normal houses?
Noone.
Go read www.whirlpool.net.au
Just like torrent sites are doing blocking access to US visitors is way to go.
Indeed, as good as it sounds, a new US president won't be anymore better. At the end of the day democrat or republican doesn't mean jack, these people are just puppet figures for the pentagon nothing more nothing less.
yea, but its mostly the Americans blowing up the innocent familys not the terrorists
yea, but its mostly the Americans blowing up the innocent familys not the terrorists
That's a sad thing to process for us americans (at least the sane ones) - I for one would never want that to happen nor do I think any other sane person in this world would want that to happen.
Now look sad and say "Heil."
Another typically retarded idea by a galactically retarded administration.
Hopefully this doesn't actually happen... :/
cant america get the hint they dont own the world, oh hell sod it russia needs to nuke the white house to show them they really do mean buggar all to the world, maybe then we will stop seeing currupt us companies and lots of people demanding that there laws are the same in every other country
God help them if they do though, I think the rest of the free world would likely condemn the act.
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.
--besides it will never happen...Bush just likes to ruffle your dresses.
Last edited by jwjw1 on 14 Oct 2007 - 01:32
hopefully, americans will cease to be passive about this and will not let the administrations do whatever they want.
And that's the problem... Most citizens don't care enough to vote. In fact, even in a presidential election it is common for more then half our population to NOT vote. They just don't care. The way things are going, they "won't care" until we have a full blown dictatorship on top of us.
You have to hit Americans in the head with a sledge hammer for them to even start to listen and wake up. It down right sad.
The line highlighted causes me great concern - when so much is subjective I don't like the idea of the US trying to promote the "truth", particularly when it has been so poor at doing that in the past. It sounds to me like they want to remove propaganda from other countries and replace it with their own, except this time in a more overt way.
Would we have known about the current riots? Would the Burmese who want democracy know that the world supports them?
How would they go about blocking all access to the Internet from and to these countries? Even if this idea is taken seriously, why is America wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer's money to restrict the Internet, when, especially in third-world countries, so hard to come by? America should be focusing the money into efforts to fix its INTERNAL problems. Crime and disease in America kills A LOT more than a terrorist with Internet access could ever do. I fully support the fight against terrorism and the soldiers risking their lives for the lives of others, but I think that this "move" goes too far. Democracy in America is slowly fading away.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/us.html
Officialy denying a country Internet through, say, the UN or the ICANN would be next to impossible, but running a black op to do it could be done. And we all know how scrupulous the US government is about that sort of thing.
The internet yes, the World Wide Web no. The WWW works on a system called DNS. The Root DNS servers are US controlled. The US could quite easily deny access to those DNS servers if it chose to. The countries in question would then have to rely on their own internal DNS servers to resolve domain names to IP addresses. However these would quickly get out of date with no master servers to update from, essentially meaning the countries in question would have to get to sites by IP address only.
So while I don't think the US could physically cut a country off from the internet, they could essentially disable the DNS system for that country and force everyone to remember IP addresses for things.
So while I don't think the US could physically cut a country off from the internet, they could essentially disable the DNS system for that country and force everyone to remember IP addresses for things.
It would just be replaced with something else, situated OUTSIDE of the USA. Isn't around 60%, or more, of the Internet outside of the USA?
They may not be perfect but they're a whole damn lot better than the US gov't.
That is only because the US abuses its veto powers.
What? Do you know what the first networks were created for? Or why?
I see you have some catchy buzzwords strung together there but I don't see any comprehension for how they are meant to read as a valid comment.
ARPA - Military, not private. ARPANET was originally created to give the government a way to communicate in case of catastrophic destruction, which was almost immediately handed over to leading universities who developed the network. MILNET somehow became a quiet sibling to the edumacational development.
ARPA in the 60s:
http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/robert...panet_large.gif
OO look here, by the mid 80s some external sites are fully established. Without knowing the details of each one I'd have to assume theyre at least a few years old by this time (yay usenet):
http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/world_..._1986_large.gif
Read more:
http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/
And whats this crap about leeching from P2P? Have you ever heard of a BBS? FTP? HTTP? All internet transactions are "p2p".
ala sarcasm
ala sarcasm
I certainly didn't use any sarcasm...did you? Which of the definitions here can be used to describe the sarcasm in your comment?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
I always remember the movie "Idiocracy (2006)" ...
smart people are always less than the idiots in the world, but in the us ... damn it's horrible ><;
Some scary World Police ideas there....
Reminds me of the movie by the south park guys...lol the one with america blowing up a village just to kill 10 terrorists. LOL sad case it is.
The other picture behind this is what are the criteria for the U.S. to say a country is an enemy of terror ?
Is it the same idiot generalizing like they did with drugs in the U.S. ? The u.s. government says if you buy marijuana you are supporting terrorism. WTF!
If you host bittorrent sites you support terrorism too ?? lol WTF!
They will be shooting themselves in the foot...The u.s. fails to realize that they aren't self sufficient. they depend on everyone else to survive like other countries do.
I see a backfire coming if this comes to light....some of these same "terrorist states" produce commodities for the U.S. consumption. lol what are they really thinking.
bet they won't block IRAQ... no because OIL comes from there. haha
sounds like Bush is coming up with these ludicrous ideas himself. lol you go mr. Yale educated commander in chief.
If you buy Crack or cocaine, you are supporting the CIA!
its like, theyre gonna first shut down a domain name, then hunt down the ip address associated with the domain and use hacker tools against it or something
methinks, there could be more elaborate ways etc... like they target a specific website, and the data that is passed onto visitors is different from what is actually in the website, and it gets swapped around every minute or so , and nobody would notice it unless they were actually looking for stuff like that happening... most people would be happy just because their webpage loads, and also for most people the website is the only way they communicate...
I'm against censorship of ANY kind. If someone says something I don't like, produces a tv/radio/newpaper/movie
I don't like, real simple, I DON'T LISTEN/WATCH IT!
I see this action, if taken, the same as the UN getting "control" of the internet. Whoever has control (should be NO ONE), can therefore control its content. I want a FREE exchange of ideas on BOTH sides.
Republicans want to ban this, democrats want to ban that, what's the difference?
One country wants to limit something, and the other wants to limit something.....same thing.
Leave the d**n internet alone.......with porn all over the place it is slow enough LOL.
These countries wanting to restrict access will only slow it down more.
It's not like any Americans spend lots of time surfing around on this site anyways. Oh wait, I do sorry.
Wow. That was exactly the mentality that America had at the start of the 20th century. Then there was that little skirmish at Pearl Harbour, and well...you know how that changed people's minds in the end.
Wow. That was exactly the mentality that America had at the start of the 20th century. Then there was that little skirmish at Pearl Harbour, and well...you know how that changed people's minds in the end.
I know. Hey, everyone wants us out.. let's take our troops and our money/aid with it. That's all. Screw all the other nations. What have they done to help us, ever?
and you thought electing bush is going to make everyone send you flowers.
and you thought electing bush is going to make everyone send you flowers.
Not everyone voted for him. How's your country's GNP, by the way?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.