4 ms·
Explain to me why this would be a good idea. Where I stand, giving to one person the power to completely disable the primary and most efficient way of communic
by ihodes 16y ago
Explain to me why this would be a good idea.
Where I stand, giving to one person the power to completely disable the primary and most efficient way of communication is frightening and awful.
The reasoning behind it? We can stop communications from attacking countries in times of war.
The reality is that there are many other modes of communication for the kind of 1 to 1 communication an attacker would need, but there are far fewer ways for the type of 1 to 1000's communication activists and thinkers need.
- tptacek 16y agoI don't think the reasoning behind this has much to do with "communications", but has rather a lot more to do with the industrial and financial infrastructural systems that have ended up connected in one way or another to the Internet.
- ihodes 16y agoRegardless, it would have an effect on communications. And so, why would it be a good idea? That's still what I haven't hear. (It also sounds like your justifications differ from Leiberman's–he's interested in the communications aspect.)
- krakensden 16y agoWouldn't it make more sense to disconnect them from the internet than to try and shutdown communication to/from some sections of the world? The ability to momentarily create a strong perimeter defense doesn't make much sense to me- it would only work against an attacker that didn't plan for it. As soon as the world knows you have a kill switch, any organized attack will have domestic components, and which means that you still have the possibility of the president screwing up the normal economy, but no additional defense.