13 ms·
I think it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, but to be fair, the proposal is not to grant the power to disable the Internet. The prop
by amalcon 16y ago
I think it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, but to be fair, the proposal is not to grant the power to disable the Internet.
The proposal is to grant the power to partition the Internet. So, it would not be analogous to how Egypt disabled the Internet almost entirely within their borders. Depending on how you look at it, it's either a subtle distinction, or a huge difference. It still serves the exact same purpose (granting the power to shut down "troublesome" communication channels even if they are physically located outside the country). On the other hand, its activation would not in and of itself impact the vast majority of American citizens (because they only use U.S.-based sites).
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThe internet is a global internetwork, a network of networks, as it were. That's where the name comes from. Partitioning the internet is isomorphic to destroying the internet.
- amalcon 16y agoWould you say that the Internet is "destroyed" whenever there's an earthquake or something that cuts trans-Atlantic cables? Would you say that it's "destroyed" by China's filtering?
- pyre 16y agoIf they cut off US access to internet sites outside of the country, the internet could still be used to organize protests, etc.
- lukev 16y agoExcept that if you can partition it you can also take it down. Even if the world "kill switch" doesn't express their intent, it will still effectively be one.