Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 157 posts

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#31

Post by [deleted] »

3pt14159 wrote: post #24
perihelions wrote: post #12

The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ( " Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’" )

In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable respo…

[deleted]

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#32

Post by ryandrake »

sojournerc wrote: post #28
3pt14159 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable respo…

How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.

Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#33

Post by OrangeMonkey »

3pt14159 wrote: post #24
perihelions wrote: post #12

The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ( " Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’" )

In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable respo…

How would the every day person gather and protest. How would they know?

Honest question - how would you know?

- The problems will not be on the radio / tv.

- Services that try to talk about it can be silenced.

- Users who talk about things the government finds inconvenient will be silenced - its already happening.

- Groups trying to organize to protest things are already banned in some cases on facebook (see Australian response to covid vaccine mandate groups).

Governments can plan for and have shut off valves to silence you.

Do not be so quick to trust a government who obviously does not want to trust you.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#34

Post by yourusername »

jliptzin wrote: post #29
zmgsabst wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as…

Social media != the government

Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#35

Post by swayvil »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #17
zmgsabst wrote: post #2

Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?

Its not even random people you don't see - its us. Us, in HN, the people you are talking to now - we would rather have censorship than free speech. You get the government you deserve. The article yesterday "Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end" shows exactly what the majority of people here think.

In short, the vast majority prefer "right speech" over "free speech".

The vast majority prefer many things that are relatively low-quality, stupid, etc.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#36

Post by djbebs »

Claude_Shannon wrote: post #26
zmgsabst wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.

You have freedom to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Just as you have freedom to pay for the consequences of that.

Bad example

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#37

Post by jasonjayr »

ryandrake wrote: post #32
sojournerc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.

Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.

But times change and so has technology.

Adversaries have access to this technology too, and it's a power multiplier. If they can shut down access to those they are oppressing, then they become far too powerful.

Yes, protesters can still protest, but without access to the same tech that those they are protesting can use, they can be out-organized, their voice muted, and their effectiveness minimized.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#38

Post by ex3ndr »

ryandrake wrote: post #32
sojournerc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.

Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.

Before telephones protests were far from peaceful and usually ended up killing someone.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#39

Post by hotpotamus »

I run infrastructure for a company that provides medical records services to medical organizations located exclusively in the US and have to deal with the usual scans/exploit attempts that come with running services on the public internet. Somedays I think it's just bonkers that anyone in China or Russia or wherever is allowed to contact my servers. I know that the internet is a "network of networks" to use an older term, and I don't really see an alternative, but it still strikes me some days.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#40

Post by themoonisachees »

zmgsabst wrote: post #11
cyberlurker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.

COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as…

Alright i'll humor you: what proves the hunter biden laptop story? Last I checked some guy said he had it, and that it had damning evidence on it, but for some reason refused to produce said evidence, or any evidence that the laptop was bidens or that there was a laptop at all.

You'd think if the contents of said laptop were as damning as they were purported to be, they would be all over, yet the guy who supposedly had it didn't release it. Why?

Post reply on HN