4 ms·

The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make

The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8336/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8336/summary

bagels 9mo ago
Laws in the era of lawlessness. Laws never really stopped all crimes anyways.
0x1ch 9mo ago
Given everything going on in this country, I don't think a silly law from 1944 is going to deter the current administration from trying.
- mhb 9mo ago
  This "current administration" thinking is exactly the problem. When your version of the current administration had the power to diminish the power of the administration, did it do that? None of them do. Somehow there's always a failure of imagining that whatever the current administration is won't always be current.
  - 0x1ch 9mo ago
    Well, that's the fun part of democracy. You don't get to bet on the status quo remaining the same.
joe_mamba 9mo ago
> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y Famous last words. I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself. If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?
- ryandrake 9mo ago
  I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.
- worldsavior 9mo ago
  I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US. Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws? History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.
  - joe_mamba 9mo ago
    Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.) So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years. Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
    - worldsavior 9mo ago
      You're right, but what do you care what happens in 500 years? The world changes. Maybe in 50 years child pornography will be legal, who knows? It doesn't change based on what those rulers want, because in a true Democratic country, the people rule.
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    > Can you please give an example for a first world country that consistently ignores it's own laws? In the US, it's standard to do ten miles an hour over the speed limit past a cop, and there's probably 20 Federally illegal marijuana dispensaries within a few miles of me. Our current President got convicted of 34 felonies, but any possible consequences were automatically voided when he got elected again.
akabalanza 9mo ago
I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence
themgt 9mo ago
> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. The link you provided says: In 1942, during World War II, Congress created a law to grant President Franklin D. Roosevelt or his successors the power to temporarily shut down any potentially vulnerable technological communications technologies. The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would reverse the 1942 law and prevent the president from shutting down any communications technology during wartime, including the internet. The House version was introduced on September 22 as bill number H.R. 8336, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 4646, by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). The bill did not pass and did not become law. So what are you referring to?
chasd00 9mo ago
I don't think it's technically feasible to blackout the US but if it came to that no law would stand in the way of the attempt.
cromka 9mo ago
> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law Good one, buddy. That's a good one.
epolanski 9mo ago
Laws are just words, not real barriers as this and previous administrations proved. In fact, it's likely that you can turn off the internet, and then, after some time, a judge will rule on the topic.
veidelis 9mo ago
The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.
vovavili 9mo ago
>cannot do it, because there is actually a law Oh sweet summer child.
hadlock 9mo ago
Even if your optimism had some basis in reality, about 12 guys with $5 serrated pocket knives bought on aliexpress could knock out 80% of communications in under an hour. Fiber optic strands are alarmingly tiny, and wrapped in day-glo orange plastic tubing making them intentionally easy to find. For whatever reason it's taboo to talk about how fragile infrastructure is, but if you wanted to shut something like comm links down, that's a problem for whoever installs the new judiciary. Chances are, whoever gets the job of being the new judiciary is likely to rule it as acceptable use of emergency powers.
xorcist 9mo ago
Does it really matter what is illegal if it is pardoned? Starting insurrection to overthrow election? Pardoned. Killing police officer? Pardoned. Ordering contract killings? Pardoned. Large scale drug smuggling operation to the US? Pardoned. Brand anyone who follows the law as a criminal and make sure to have them fired, and you can even ignore the constition that says power to regulate trade lies with the senate and enough of civil society might just decide to play along.

bagels 9mo ago

Laws in the era of lawlessness. Laws never really stopped all crimes anyways.

0x1ch 9mo ago

Given everything going on in this country, I don't think a silly law from 1944 is going to deter the current administration from trying.

mhb 9mo ago
This "current administration" thinking is exactly the problem. When your version of the current administration had the power to diminish the power of the administration, did it do that? None of them do. Somehow there's always a failure of imagining that whatever the current administration is won't always be current.
- 0x1ch 9mo ago
  Well, that's the fun part of democracy. You don't get to bet on the status quo remaining the same.

joe_mamba 9mo ago

> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y Famous last words. I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself. If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?

ryandrake 9mo ago
I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.
worldsavior 9mo ago
I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US. Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws? History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.
- joe_mamba 9mo ago
  Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.) So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years. Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
  - worldsavior 9mo ago
    You're right, but what do you care what happens in 500 years? The world changes. Maybe in 50 years child pornography will be legal, who knows? It doesn't change based on what those rulers want, because in a true Democratic country, the people rule.
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  > Can you please give an example for a first world country that consistently ignores it's own laws? In the US, it's standard to do ten miles an hour over the speed limit past a cop, and there's probably 20 Federally illegal marijuana dispensaries within a few miles of me. Our current President got convicted of 34 felonies, but any possible consequences were automatically voided when he got elected again.

akabalanza 9mo ago

I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence

themgt 9mo ago

> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. The link you provided says: In 1942, during World War II, Congress created a law to grant President Franklin D. Roosevelt or his successors the power to temporarily shut down any potentially vulnerable technological communications technologies. The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would reverse the 1942 law and prevent the president from shutting down any communications technology during wartime, including the internet. The House version was introduced on September 22 as bill number H.R. 8336, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 4646, by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). The bill did not pass and did not become law. So what are you referring to?

chasd00 9mo ago

I don't think it's technically feasible to blackout the US but if it came to that no law would stand in the way of the attempt.

cromka 9mo ago

> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law Good one, buddy. That's a good one.

epolanski 9mo ago

Laws are just words, not real barriers as this and previous administrations proved. In fact, it's likely that you can turn off the internet, and then, after some time, a judge will rule on the topic.

veidelis 9mo ago

The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.

vovavili 9mo ago

>cannot do it, because there is actually a law Oh sweet summer child.

hadlock 9mo ago

Even if your optimism had some basis in reality, about 12 guys with $5 serrated pocket knives bought on aliexpress could knock out 80% of communications in under an hour. Fiber optic strands are alarmingly tiny, and wrapped in day-glo orange plastic tubing making them intentionally easy to find. For whatever reason it's taboo to talk about how fragile infrastructure is, but if you wanted to shut something like comm links down, that's a problem for whoever installs the new judiciary. Chances are, whoever gets the job of being the new judiciary is likely to rule it as acceptable use of emergency powers.

xorcist 9mo ago

Does it really matter what is illegal if it is pardoned? Starting insurrection to overthrow election? Pardoned. Killing police officer? Pardoned. Ordering contract killings? Pardoned. Large scale drug smuggling operation to the US? Pardoned. Brand anyone who follows the law as a criminal and make sure to have them fired, and you can even ignore the constition that says power to regulate trade lies with the senate and enough of civil society might just decide to play along.